

[Federal Register: December 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 244)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 75883-75906]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21de05-27]                         


[[Page 75883]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning 
Facilities; Proposed Rule


[[Page 75884]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2005-0155; FRL-8008-4]
RIN 2060-AK18

 
National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry 
Cleaning Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revised standards to limit emissions of 
perchloroethylene (PCE) from existing and new dry cleaning facilities. 
In 1993, EPA promulgated technology-based emission standards to control 
emissions of PCE from dry cleaning facilities. As required by section 
112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has reviewed the standards 
and is proposing revisions to take into account new developments in 
production practices, processes, and control technologies. In addition, 
pursuant to CAA section 112(f), EPA has evaluated the remaining risk to 
public health and the environment following implementation of the 
technology-based rule and is proposing more stringent standards in 
order to protect public health with an ample margin of safety. The 
proposed standards are expected to provide further reductions of PCE 
beyond the 1993 national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP), based on application of equipment and work 
practice standards.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 6, 
2006.
    Public Hearing. A public hearing is currently scheduled for January 
5, 2006. If this date falls on a weekend, the hearing will be held the 
next business day. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the 
information collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before 
January 20, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
OAR-2005-0155, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 

EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, will be replaced by 
an enhanced Federal-wide electronic docket management and comment 
system located at http://www.regulations.gov. When that occurs, you 

will be redirected to that site to access the docket and submit 
comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2005-0155.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-
0155.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 
Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2005-0155, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total 
of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk 
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver your 
comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. OAR-
2005-0155, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West Building, Room B-
108, 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. Please include a total of two 
copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0155. 
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. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the 
following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, 
EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2005-0155, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that 
you claim to be CBI. 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. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
 or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 

38102).
    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. OAR 2005-0155, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying docket materials.
    Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 
a.m. and will be held at EPA's campus at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 
Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons 
interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a 
public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and 
Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division, EPA (C539-03), 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-7946, at least 2 
days in advance of the hearing. If no one contacts Ms. Eck in advance 
of the hearing with a request to present oral testimony at the hearing, 
we will cancel the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed rule, 
contact Ms. Rhea Jones, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Emission Standards Division, Coatings and Consumer Products 
Group (C539-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;

[[Page 75885]]

telephone number (919) 541-2940; fax number (919) 541-5689; e-mail 
address: jones.rhea@epa.gov. For questions on the residual risk 
analysis, contact Mr. Neal Fann, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Risk and Exposure 
Assessment Group (C404-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone 
number (919) 541-0209; fax number (919) 541-0840; e-mail address: 
fann.neal@epa.gov.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by the proposed rule are industrial and commercial PCE dry cleaners. 
The proposed rule affects the following categories of sources:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                NAICS 1 code            Examples of potentially regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin-operated Laundries and Dry              812310  Dry-to-dry machines, Transfer machines.
 Cleaners.
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services            812320  Dry-to-dry machines, Transfer machines.
 (except coin-operated).
Industrial Launderers..............          812332  Dry-to-dry machines, Transfer machines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 regulated by the 
proposed rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by the 
proposed rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.320 of subpart M (1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP). If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of the proposed rule to a 
particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information which you claim to be CBI 
to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all 
of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a 
disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 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. 
Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance 
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming 
CBI, please consult either of the persons identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being 
available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed rule is 
also available on the http://WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a 

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

information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for regulating hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP)?
    B. What are PCE dry cleaning facilities?
    C. What are the health effects of PCE?
    D. What does the 1993 NESHAP require?
II. Summary of Proposed Rule
    A. What are the proposed requirements for major sources?
    B. What are the proposed requirements for area sources?
    C. What are the proposed requirements for transfer machines at 
major and area sources?
III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule
    A. What is our approach for developing residual risk standards?
    B. How did we estimate residual risk?
    C. What are the residual risks from major sources?
    D. What are the options for reducing risk, their costs, and risk 
reduction impacts for major sources?
    E. What is our proposed decision on acceptable risk and ample 
margin of safety for major sources?
    F. What are the risks from typical area sources?
    G. What are the options for reducing risk, their costs, and risk 
reduction impacts for typical area sources?
    H. What is our proposal for addressing the remaining emissions 
for typical area sources?
    I. What are the risks from co-residential area sources?
    J. What is our proposed decision on co-residential area sources?
    K. What determination is EPA proposing pursuant to review of the 
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP under CAA section 112(d)(6)?
    L. What additional changes are we making to the 1993 Dry 
Cleaning NESHAP?
IV. Solicitation of Public Comments
    A. Additional Requirements for Highest Risk Facilities
    B. Requirement for PCE Sensor and Lockout as New Source MACT for 
Major Sources
    C. Alternative Performance-based Standard for Existing Major 
Sources
    D. Environmental Impacts of PCE Emissions
    E. Additional Time for Complying with Provisions for Transfer 
Machines
V. 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

I. Background

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

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of 
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in the CAA, section 
112(d) calls for us to promulgate national technology-based emission 
standards for sources within those categories that emit or have the 
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year 
or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year (known 
as major sources), as well as for certain area sources emitting less 
than those amounts. These technology-based standards must reflect the 
maximum reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 
requirements, and non-air health and environmental impacts) and are 
commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 
standards.
    For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that the standards 
may reflect generally available control technology or management 
practices in lieu of MACT, and are commonly

[[Page 75886]]

referred to as generally available control technology (GACT) standards. 
We published MACT and GACT standards for PCE dry cleaning facilities on 
September 22, 1993 at 58 FR 49376. The EPA is then required, pursuant 
to section 112(d)(6), 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.
    The second stage in standard-setting is described in section 112(f) 
of the CAA. 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 to emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation 
regarding such remaining risk. The EPA prepared and submitted this 
report (Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 
1999. The Congress did not act on any of the recommendations in the 
report, thereby triggering the second stage of the standard-setting 
process, the residual risk phase.
    Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine for each 
section 112(d) source category whether the MACT standards protect 
public health with an ample margin of safety. 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 protect public health 
with an ample margin of safety. The EPA must also adopt more stringent 
standards if required to prevent an adverse environmental effect 
(defined in section 112(a)(7) as ``any significant and widespread 
adverse effect * * * to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural resources * 
* *.''), but must consider cost, energy, safety, and other relevant 
factors in doing so.

B. What are PCE dry cleaning facilities?

    Dry cleaners use PCE in a dry cleaning machine to clean all types 
of garments, including clothes, gloves, leather garments, blankets, and 
absorbent materials. There are approximately 28,000 PCE dry cleaning 
facilities in the United States. Of the 28,000 dry cleaners, 15 of the 
facilities are major sources and the remaining are area sources. Major 
source PCE dry cleaners are those that emit 10 tons or more of PCE per 
year upon the compliance date of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. The 1993 
Dry Cleaning NESHAP defines this as facilities that purchase more than 
2,100 gallons (gal) of PCE per year (1,800 gal per year if the facility 
uses transfer machines). Area sources are typically the common 
neighborhood dry cleaner. Area sources were divided into large or small 
in the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP, with large area sources defined as 
those facilities that use between 140 to 2,100 gal of PCE per year (or 
140 to 1,800 gal per year if the facility uses transfer machines). 
Small area sources use less than 140 gal per year. Some area sources 
are collocated in the same building with residences. In the 1993 Dry 
Cleaning NESHAP we did not specifically discuss these sources, but in 
this notice we refer to them as co-residential dry cleaners. A co-
residential dry cleaning facility is located in a building in which 
people reside. Co-residential facilities are located primarily in urban 
areas.
    In general, PCE dry cleaning facilities can be classified into 
three types: commercial, industrial, and leather. Commercial facilities 
typically clean household items such as suits, dresses, coats, pants, 
comforters, curtains, and formalwear. Industrial dry cleaners clean 
heavily-stained articles such as work gloves, uniforms, mechanics' 
overalls, mops, and shop rags. Leather cleaners mostly clean household 
leather products like jackets and other leather clothing. The 15 major 
sources include eight industrial facilities, five commercial 
facilities, and two leather facilities. The five commercial facilities 
are each the central plant for a chain of retail storefronts. We do not 
expect any new source facilities constructed in the future to be major 
sources. Based on the low emission rates of current PCE dry cleaning 
machines and the typical business models used in the industrial and 
commercial dry cleaning sectors, it is unlikely that any new sources 
that are constructed will emit PCE at major levels, or that any 
existing area sources will become major sources due to business growth.
    Dry cleaning machines can be classified into two types: Transfer 
and dry-to-dry. Similar to residential washing machines and dryers, 
transfer machines have a unit for washing/extracting and another unit 
for drying. Following the wash cycle, PCE-laden articles are manually 
transferred from the washer/extractor to the dryer. The transfer of wet 
fabrics is the predominant source of PCE emissions in these systems. 
Dry-to-dry machines wash, extract, and dry the articles in the same 
drum in a single machine, so the articles enter and exit the machine 
dry. Because the transfer step is eliminated, dry-to-dry machines have 
much lower emissions than transfer machines.
    New transfer machines are effectively prohibited at major and area 
sources due to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP requirement that new dry 
cleaning systems eliminate any emissions of PCE while transferring 
articles from the washer to the dryer. Therefore, transfer machines are 
no longer sold. Existing transfer machines are becoming an increasingly 
smaller segment of the dry cleaning population as these machines reach 
the end of their useful lives and are replaced by dry-to-dry machines. 
There are approximately 200 transfer machines currently being used, all 
at area sources.
    The primary sources of PCE emissions from dry-to-dry machines are 
the drying cycle and fugitive emissions from the dry cleaning equipment 
(including equipment used to recycle PCE and dispose of PCE-laden 
waste). Machines are designed to be either vented or non-vented during 
the drying cycle. Approximately 200 dry cleaners (1 percent) use vented 
machines, and the remaining facilities use the lower-polluting, non-
vented machines. (The 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP prohibits new dry 
cleaning machines at major and area sources that vent to the atmosphere 
while the dry cleaning drum is rotating.) In vented machines, the 
majority of emissions from the drying cycle are vented outside the 
building. In non-vented machines, dryer emissions are released when the 
door is opened to remove garments. Currently, the largest sources of 
emissions from dry cleaning are from equipment leaks, which come from 
leaking valves and seals, and the loading and unloading of garments.

C. What are the health effects of PCE?

    The main health effects of PCE are neurological, liver, and kidney 
damage following acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) inhalation 
exposure. Animal studies have reported an increased incidence of liver 
cancer in mice via inhalation, kidney cancer and mononuclear cell 
leukemia in rats. PCE was considered to be a ``probable carcinogen'' 
(Group B) when assessed under the previous 1986 Guidelines by the EPA 
Science Advisory Board. See the risk characterization memorandum in the 
public docket for additional information regarding the health effects 
of PCE.

[[Page 75887]]

D. What does the 1993 NESHAP require?

    The 1993 NESHAP prescribes a combination of equipment, work 
practices, and operational requirements. The requirements for process 
controls are summarized in table 1 of this preamble. The 1993 Dry 
Cleaning NESHAP defines major and area sources based on the annual PCE 
purchases for all machines at a facility. The consumption criterion 
(which affects the amount of PCE purchased) varies depending on whether 
the facility has dry-to-dry machines only, transfer machines only, or a 
combination of both. The affected source is each individual dry 
cleaning system.

                       Table 1.--Summary of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP Process Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Sources                   Annual PCE purchased   New \1\ (after 12/9/91)        Existing \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Sources........................  Dry-to-dry ONLY > 2,100  Dry-to-dry machines      Dry-to-dry machines:
                                        gal/yr.                  with a refrigerated      must have refrigerated
                                       Transfer ONLY > 1,800     condenser, AND carbon    AND condenser.\3\
                                        gal/yr.                  adsorber operated       Transfer machines: must
                                       Dry-to-dry AND Transfer   immediately before or    be enclosed in a room
                                        > 1,800 gal/yr.          as the door is opened.   exhausting to a
                                                                                          dedicated carbon
                                                                                          adsorber.
Large Area Sources...................  Dry-to-dry ONLY 140 to   Dry-to-dry machines      Dry-to-dry with
                                        2,100 gal/yr.            with a refrigerated      machines: must have a
                                       Transfer ONLY 200 to      condenser.               refrigerated
                                        1,800 gal/yr.                                     condenser.\3\
                                       Dry-to-dry AND Transfer                           Transfer machines: No
                                        140 to 1,800 gal/yr.                              controls required.
Small Area Sources...................  Dry-to-dry ONLY <  140    Same as large area       No controls required.
                                        gal/yr.                  sources.
                                       Transfer ONLY <  200 gal/
                                        yr.
                                       Dry-to-dry AND Transfer
                                        <  140 gal/yr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No new transfer machines are allowed after 9/23/93.
\2\ Compliance date = 9/23/96.
\3\ Alternatively, carbon adsorber is allowed only if installed before 9/22/93.

    In addition, all sources must comply with certain operating 
requirements, including recording PCE purchases, storing PCE and PCE-
containing waste in non-leaking containers, and inspecting for 
perceptible leaks. Owners or operators are required to operate and 
maintain the control equipment according to procedures specified in the 
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP and to use pollution prevention procedures, 
such as good operation and maintenance, for both dry cleaning machines 
and auxiliary equipment (such as filter, muck cookers, stills, and 
solvent tanks) to prevent liquid and vapor leaks of PCE from these 
sources.

II. Summary of Proposed Rule

A. What are the proposed requirements for major sources?

    Under the proposed revisions, the requirements for all new and 
existing major sources would be the same. The proposed revisions would 
require the implementation of an enhanced leak detection and repair 
(LDAR) program and the use of dry-to-dry machines that do not vent to 
the atmosphere (closed-loop) during any phase of the dry cleaning 
cycle. A refrigerated condenser and a secondary carbon adsorber would 
be required control equipment for all machines. The secondary carbon 
adsorber would control the PCE emissions during the final stage of the 
dry cleaning cycle immediately before and as the drum door is opened. 
Under the enhanced LDAR program, the facility owner or operator would 
have to use a PCE gas analyzer (photoionization detector, 
flameionization detector, or infrared analyzer) and perform leak checks 
according to EPA Method 21 on a monthly basis. The facility owner or 
operator would also be required to continue the weekly perceptible leak 
check according to the requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.

B. What are the proposed requirements for area sources?

    For existing area sources (large and small), the proposed revisions 
would require implementation of an enhanced LDAR program and a 
prohibition on the use of existing transfer machines.
    For new area sources (large and small), the proposed rule would 
require implementation of an enhanced LDAR program and use of a non-
vented dry-to-dry machine with a refrigerated condenser and secondary 
carbon adsorber. The enhanced LDAR program for area sources would 
require facilities to use a halogenated leak detector (instead of a 
more costly gas analyzer proposed for major sources) to perform leak 
checks on a monthly basis. The facility would also be required to 
continue to inspect for perceptible leaks biweekly for small area 
sources and weekly for large area sources according to the requirements 
of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.
    For co-residential area sources, we are proposing two options. The 
first proposed option would effectively prohibit new PCE sources from 
locating in residential buildings by requiring that owners or operators 
eliminate PCE emissions from the dry cleaning process. Existing co-
residential sources, under this option, would only be subject to the 
same requirements proposed for all other existing area sources (i.e., 
enhanced LDAR and elimination of transfer machines). The second 
proposed option would, instead of a prohibition on new co-residential 
sources, require that existing and new co-residential sources comply 
with standards based on those required by New York State Department of 
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in their Title 6 NYCRR Part 232 
rules, which include using machines equipped with refrigerated 
condensers and carbon adsorbers, enclosed in a vapor barrier to help 
prevent exposures to PCE emissions. We expect to select one of these 
options, with possible modifications in response to public comments, in 
the final rule.

C. What are the proposed requirements for transfer machines at major 
and area sources?

    The proposed rule would effectively prohibit the use of all 
existing transfer machines 90 days from the effective date of the final 
rule by requiring owners or operators to eliminate any PCE emissions 
from clothing transfer between the washer and dryer. Similarly, the 
installation of new transfer machines was prohibited by the

[[Page 75888]]

1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. We estimate that about 200 transfer machines 
remain in use within the population of 28,000 dry cleaning machines 
located at area sources (estimated one PCE dry cleaning machine per 
facility with approximately 28,000 facilities). Most of these machines 
will be at or near the end of their useful economic life by the time 
final rule requirements are promulgated. The typical life of a dry 
cleaning machine is 10 to 15 years. By the end of 2006, the newest 
transfer machines in the industry will be 13 years old.

III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule

A. What is our approach for developing residual risk standards?

    Following our initial determination that the individual most 
exposed to emissions from the category considered exceeds a 1-in-1 
million individual cancer risk, our approach to developing residual 
risk standards is based on a two-step determination of acceptable risk 
and ample margin of safety. The first step, consideration of acceptable 
risk, is only a starting point for the analysis that determines the 
final standards. The second step determines an ample margin of safety, 
which is the level at which the standards are set.
    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) refers positively to the 
interpretation of these terms in our 1989 rulemaking (54 FR 38044, 
September 14, 1989), ``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),'' 
essentially directing us to use the interpretation set out in that 
notice \1\ or to utilize approaches affording at least the same level 
of protection.\2\ We likewise notified Congress in the Residual Risk 
Report that we intended to utilize the Benzene NESHAP approach in 
making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This reading is confirmed by the Legislative History to CAA 
section 112(f); see, e.g., ``A Legislative History of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990,'' vol. 1, page 877 (Senate Debate on 
Conference Report).
    \2\ Legislative History, vol. 1, p. 877, stating that: ``* * * 
the managers intend that the Administrator shall interpret this 
requirement [to establish standards reflecting an ample margin of 
safety] in a manner no less protective of the most exposed 
individual than the policy set forth in the Administrator's benzene 
regulations * * *.''
    \3\ Residual Risk Report to Congress. March 1999. EPA-453/R-99-
001, page ES-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989), 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.

    As explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report, these goals 
are not ``rigid line[s] of acceptability, but rather broad objectives 
to be weighed ``with a series of other health measures and 
factors.\4\''

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How did we estimate residual risk?

    The ``Residual Risk Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-99-001) 
provides the general framework for conducting risk assessments to 
support decisions made under the residual risk program. The report 
acknowledged that each risk assessment design would have some common 
elements, including a problem formulation phase, an analysis phase, and 
the risk characterization phase. The risk assessment for PCE dry 
cleaners used both site-specific data for many modeling parameters and 
population characteristics derived from census data, as well as default 
assumptions for exposure parameters--some of which were assumed to be 
health protective (e.g., exposure frequency and exposure duration, 70-
year constant emission rates).5 6 To estimate the cancer 
risk and non-cancer hazard for major source facilities, we performed 
refined modeling for a subset of major source facilities we determined 
were representative of all major sources, including industrial 
cleaners, commercial cleaners, and leather cleaners. Facilities within 
each of these three specializations tend to be homogenous with respect 
to factors that affect the emissions, pollutant dispersion, and 
population size in the modeling radius, allowing us to extrapolate 
risks from facilities modeled to those that were not modeled. We used a 
combination of modeling and monitoring approaches to analyze risks for 
area sources. See the risk characterization memorandum in the public 
docket for a complete discussion of the major and area source risk 
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Additional details are provided in the risk characterization 
memorandum in the rulemaking docket.
    \6\ Residual Risk Report to Congress, pp. B-18 and B-22. The 
approach used to assess the risks associated with standards for the 
dry cleaning industry are consistent with the technical approach and 
policies described in the Report to Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. How did we estimate the atmospheric dispersion of PCE emitted 
from major and area sources?
    We used the Industrial Source Complex Short-term model, version 3 
(ISCST-3) to estimate the dispersion of PCE from facilities to receptor 
locations. For a complete description of the dispersion modeling, 
please see the risk characterization memorandum.
    2. How did we assess public health risk associated with PCE emitted 
from PCE dry cleaners?
    PCE has been associated with a variety of health effects, including 
cancer. Although PCE has not yet been reassessed under the Agency's 
recently revised Guidelines for Cancer Risk Assessment,\7\ it was 
considered to be a ``probable carcinogen'' (Group B) \8\ when assessed 
under the previous 1986 Guidelines by the EPA Science Advisory Board. 
Since that time, the United States Department of Health and Human 
Services has concluded that PCE is ``reasonably anticipated to be a 
human carcinogen,\9\'' and the International Agency for Research on 
Cancer has concluded that PCE is ``probably carcinogenic to 
humans.\10\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ USEPA. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/
650/P-03/001B. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
    \8\ March 9, 1988 letter to Lee Thomas, Administrator, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, from Norton Nelson, Chair, 
Executive Committee of EPA Science Advisory Board.
    \9\ USDHHS. 1989. Report on Carcinogens, Fifth Edition; U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 
National Toxicology Program.
    \10\ IARC. 1995. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic 
risks to humans. Volume 63. Dry Cleaning, Some Chlorinated Solvents 
and Other Industrial Chemicals. ISBN 9283212630. Geneva, 
Switzerland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our assessment of public health risk associated with PCE emitted 
from PCE dry cleaners, we considered risks of cancer and other health 
effects. Cancer risks associated with inhalation exposure were assessed 
using lifetime cancer risk estimates. The noncancer risks were 
characterized through the use of hazard quotient (HQ) and hazard index 
(HI) estimates. An HQ is calculated as the ratio of the exposure 
concentration of a pollutant to its health-based non-cancer threshold.
    In this assessment, values that are below 1.0 are not likely to be 
associated with adverse health effects. An HI is the sum of HQ for 
pollutants that target the same organ or system. For dry cleaners, PCE 
is the only HAP emitted, therefore, HI and HQ are the same.

[[Page 75889]]

    Several sources were considered for cancer and noncancer dose-
response assessment information. In a 1998 assessment of PCE cancer 
risks associated with dry cleaners, EPA's Office of Prevention, 
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) derived and used a lifetime 
inhalation unit risk estimate (URE) of 7.1 x 10-\7\ per 
microgram per cubic meter (ug/m\3\).\11\ This reflected an update of 
the URE of 5.8 x 10-\7\ per ug/m\3\ that was derived by EPA 
in the 1980s.\12\ The PCE cancer dose-response assessments developed by 
others include a lifetime URE of 5.9 x 10-\6\ per ug/m\3\ 
developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency 
(CalEPA),\13\ and a lifetime URE of 3.8 x 10-\7\ per ug/m\3\ 
developed by Clewell and others.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ USEPA. 1998. Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: 
Professional Fabricare Processes. EPA 744-B-98-001. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and 
Toxics, Washington, DC.
    \12\ USEPA. 1996. Addendum to the Health Assessment Document for 
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene), Updated Carcinogenicity 
Assessment for Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene, PERC, PCE). 
EPA/600/8-82/005FA. External Review Draft. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, 
Washington, DC.
    \13\ CDHS. 1991. Health Effects of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE). 
California Department of Health Services (subsequently CalEPA, 
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), Berkeley, CA.
    \14\ H.J. Clewell, P.R. Gentry, J.E. Kester, and M.E. Andersen. 
2005. Evaluation of physiologically based pharmacokinetic 
perchloroethylene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are currently reevaluating the available information on health 
effects of PCE, including cancer, as part of a hazard and dose-response 
assessment for the Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 
The cancer component of this evaluation is being conducted in 
accordance with the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. 
Data have become available from the Japanese Industrial Safety 
Association (1993) that includes rodent inhalation studies with a 
cancer bio-assay which was not considered by the sources above.\15\ The 
document describing the evaluation is expected to be released for 
external scientific peer review and public comment. The projected 
schedule for completion of the IRIS assessment is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/index.cfm
.

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

    \15\ JISA (Japan Industrial Safety Association). 1993. 
Carcinogenicity Study of Tetrachloroethylene by Inhalation in Rats 
and Mice. Data No. 3-1. Available from: EPA-IRIS Information Desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While all of the available lifetime URE are based on the same 
animal bioassay \16\ (1986), there are several factors contributing to 
the differences in magnitude among them. One significant contributing 
factor is characterization of human metabolism of PCE. This is an area 
in which widely diverging quantitative estimates have been published, 
and their use leads to notable differences in human cancer dose-
response value derived from animal data, illustrated to some extent by 
the range of values presented above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NTP. 1986. NTP technical report on the toxicology and 
carcinogenesis of tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) (CAS No. 
127-18-4) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (inhalation studies). 
National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC. NTP TR 311, 
NIH Publication No. 86-2567. August 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an interim approach in lieu of the completed IRIS assessment, we 
used two dose-response values to characterize cancer risk. These two 
values were chosen to represent the best available peer-reviewed 
science. As we have stated previously, we will not be relying 
exclusively on IRIS values, but will be considering all credible and 
readily available assessments.\17\ We used the CalEPA URE (5.9 x 
10-\6\ per ug/m\3\) and the estimate developed by OPPTS (7.1 
x 10-\7\ per ug/m\3\). Both are derived with consideration 
of findings of liver tumors in mouse laboratory bioassays, with the 
OPPTS value additionally considering laboratory findings of mononuclear 
cell leukemia in rats, and both have received public comment and 
scientific peer review by external panels. Dose-response modeling 
performed in both assessments involved use of metabolized doses with 
different estimates of human PCE metabolism contributing to differences 
in the resulting URE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ USEPA. March 1999. Residual Risk Report to Congress. Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711. EPA-453/R-99-001; available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/meta/m8690.html
.

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

    Effects other than cancer associated with long-term inhalation of 
PCE in worker or animal studies include neurotoxicity, liver and kidney 
damage, and, at higher levels, developmental effects. To characterize 
noncancer hazard in lieu of the completed IRIS assessment, we used the 
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) Minimum Risk 
Level (MRL) (270 ug/m\3\.\18\ This value is based on a study of 
neurological effects in workers in dry cleaning shops, and is derived 
in a manner similar to EPA's method for derivation of reference 
concentrations (Rfc), and with scientific and public review. The ATSDR 
MRL is quite similar to the provisional RfC (170 ug/m\3\) derived by 
OPPTS in 1997 based on a study of kidney effects in workers in dry 
cleaning shops \19\ that reported effects at similar exposure 
concentrations than those elsewhere reported associated with 
neurological effects. The OPPTS value was termed a provisional RfC 
because it was derived by a single EPA program office with limited 
cross-office review. This value is based on a study of neurological 
effects in workers in dry cleaning shops. Since that time, more recent 
studies have been published, particularly with regard to more sensitive 
neurological effects at lower exposures.\20\ We are reviewing these and 
all of the available information on the noncancer health effects of PCE 
as part of the IRIS assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ATSDR. 1997. Toxicological Profile for Tetrachloroethylene. 
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, 
Agnecy for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
    \19\ V. Vu. 1997. Memorandum titled ``Provisional RfC for 
perchloroethylene'' From Vanessa Vu, Acting Director, Health and 
Environmental Review Division, to William Waugh, Acting Directory, 
Chemical Screening and Risk Assessment Division, OPPT, USEPA. As 
cited in OPPTS 1998. Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: 
Professional Fabricare Processes. EPA-744-B-98-001. USEPA, Office of 
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC.
    \20\ USEPA. 2004. Summary report of the peer review workshop on 
the neurotoxicity of tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) 
discussion paper. National Center for Environmental Assessment, 
Washington, DC; EPA-600-R-04-041. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea
.

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

    The proposed rule is based on both the risk estimates derived using 
both the CalEPA cancer dose-response values and the ATSDR noncancer 
MRL. The CalEPA cancer dose-response value is higher than the value 
derived by OPPTS, leading to higher cancer risk estimates. Given our 
uncertainty regarding the pending IRIS dose-response values, we have 
considered the range of available potencies with which to calculate 
inhalation cancer risk. We calculate cancer risk using both values, but 
propose to use the CalEPA value. We request comment on both this 
approach of using the more health protective end of the dose-response 
range and our selection of dose-response values. Based on the findings 
and status of the IRIS assessment at the time of promulgation, we may 
reassess our estimates of cancer risk and noncancer hazard. The Agency 
is aware that some stakeholders have suggested that we defer certain 
action pending completion of the IRIS assessment for PCE. In today's 
notice, we request comment on our proposal to use the available CalEPA 
and OPPTS potency values, and we request comments on whether we should 
defer further development of the risk assessment and any rulemakings 
under section 112(f)(2) for area sources pending completion of the IRIS 
assessment for PCE.

[[Page 75890]]

    3. How did we assess environmental impacts of major sources and 
typical area sources?
    The chemical properties of PCE suggest that once it is emitted into 
the atmosphere as a vapor, it is not likely to partition significantly 
into soil, water, or sediment. Based on fugacity modeling, we estimate 
that 99.8 percent of ambient PCE remains in the atmosphere, with the 
remainder partitioning into water (0.17 percent), and soil (0.05 
percent). Thus, PCE emitted from major stationary sources is not likely 
to pose a significant ecological risk due to any exposure pathway other 
than inhalation.
    Further, to assess the potential inhalation risk to mammals from 
PCE inhalation, we compared the minimum lowest observable adverse 
effect level (LOAEL) for rats with the highest level of modeled ambient 
concentration from PCE cleaners; the rat LOAEL for PCE can be found in 
the ATSDR toxicological profile that documents the development of the 
MRL (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp18.html). The lowest rat 

LOAEL (9 parts per million (ppm), or 60 mg/m\3\) is about 2,000 times 
higher than the highest modeled post-control ambient concentrations 
from major stationary sources.
    This large margin of exposure leads us to conclude that risks to 
mammals from PCE inhalation are likely insignificant, obviating the 
need to further quantify ecological risks to any degree.
    In the atmosphere, PCE is known to degrade into many compounds, 
including trichloroacetic acid (TCAA). TCAA is a persistent, known 
phytotoxin, which has been discontinued as a herbicide. Atmospheric 
transformation of PCE to TCAA is the subject of great debate, with 
potential conversion efficiencies estimated to be on the order of 5 to 
15 percent. However, there are very few data quantifying TCAA 
concentrations in the air, precipitation, water, soil, or sediment in 
the United States. This scarcity of data makes it difficult to 
determine whether there is any potential for adverse ecological impacts 
on plant life from PCE emissions from dry cleaners due to conversion to 
TCAA. While we have no direct evidence that this will present a 
significant ecological risk, we nonetheless invite public comment and 
solicit additional scientific information on this issue. Since our 
results showed no screening level ecological effects, we do not believe 
that there is any potential for an effect on threatened or endangered 
species or on their critical habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR 
402.14(a). Because of these results, we concluded a consultation with 
the Fish and Wildlife Service is not necessary.

C. What are the residual risks from major sources?

    Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the estimated risks remaining 
for the seven modeled major source facilities after compliance with 
MACT. In performing residual risk assessments under the CAA section 
112(f)(2), EPA believes it may evaluate potential risk based on 
consideration of both emission levels allowed under the MACT standard 
and actual emissions levels achieved in compliance with MACT. See, 
e.g., 70 FR 19992, 19998 (April 15, 2005). Generally, allowable 
emissions are the maximum levels sources could emit and still comply 
with existing standards. It is also reasonable that we consider actual 
emissions when available, as a factor in both steps of the residual 
risk determination, to avoid unrealistic inflation of risk levels or 
where other factors suggest basing the evaluation solely on allowables 
is not appropriate. Essentially, the existing dry cleaning MACT 
standard is comprised of equipment standards and various work 
practices. Compliance with the existing MACT standard is demonstrated 
by use of the required equipment and implementation of the required 
work practices, and there are no numeric emissions levels to model. 
Therefore, the seven facilities were modeled using actual 2000-2002 
emissions and are representative of the emissions from major sources. 
We conclude that the sampled facilities represent characteristics of 
the major source facility population, including commercial, industrial, 
and leather facilities. The risk analysis shows that each of the seven 
modeled facilities poses a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or greater. 
The highest maximum individual cancer risk (MIR) is between 300-in-1 
million and 2,400-in-1 million. The MIR is the lifetime risk of 
developing cancer for the individual facing the highest estimated 
exposure over a 70-year lifetime. Five of the modeled facilities pose a 
risk greater than 100-in-1 million (the presumptive unacceptable risk 
level), and about 550 people are exposed at this level. One facility 
has a HQ of greater than 1.0. As described below in section III.E, we 
expect a continuing decline in PCE emissions even in the absence of 
additional Federal regulation. These baseline risk estimates do not 
reflect such a trend, therefore; baseline risks are likely to be 
overestimated.

  Table 2.--Major Source Baseline Risk Estimates for Modeled Facilities After Application of 1993 Dry Cleaning
                                 NESHAP, Based on 70-Year Exposure Duration \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Parameter                      MACT level  (OPPTS URE)               MACT level  (CalEPA URE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIR from facility with highest risk  300-in-1 million.....................  2,400-in-1 million.
Maximum HQ from facility with        2....................................  2.
 highest risk based on ATSDR MRL.
Population at risk across all
 modeled facilities [modeled to 10
 kilometers (km)]:
    > 1-in-1 million...............  16,000...............................  175,000.
    > 10-in-1 million..............  800..................................  12,500.
    > 100-in-1 million.............  10...................................  550.
    Total population exposed.......  3,300,000............................  3,300,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this table, all risk and population estimates are rounded.

    To account for the fact that individuals may move through areas 
(microenvironments) of differing concentrations during their daily 
activities, EPA conducted an exposure variability analysis in which it 
used the Total Risk Integration Methodology Exposure model (TRIM.Expo, 
also known as the Air Pollutant Exposure Model 3, or APEX3). The 
TRIM.Expo model uses a personal profile approach in which it 
stochastically simulates exposures for individuals of differing 
demographic characteristics and associated daily activity patterns. The 
model output provides a distribution of exposure estimates which are 
intended to be representative of the study population with respect to 
their demographically based behavior, in terms of the microenvironments 
through

[[Page 75891]]

which they move during a day and throughout a year (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera
 for more information regarding the model). To 

estimate cancer risk, EPA assumes that this 1-year exposure scenario 
continues for 70 years. Table 3 contrasts ISCST-3 and TRIM.Expo 
estimates of population risk for the worst-case facility, using the 
CalEPA URE; this example is illustrative only.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Note that the ISCST-3 modeling results do not match earlier 
risk estimates due to the fact that EPA used an earlier set of 
ISCST-3 modeling results for the TRIM.Expo analysis. The original 
ISCST-3 results are retained here so that the comparison with 
TRIM.Expo will be consistent.

        Table 3.--Comparison of ISCST-3 Exposure Estimates with Activity-Patterned/Day, Lifetime Exposure
                                               [ISCST-3+Trim.Expo]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Total population at cancer risk
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                              Model                                  >100-in-1       >10-in-1         >1-in-1
                                                                      million         million         million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISCST-3.........................................................             900          14,000          75,000
TRIM.Expo.......................................................             400           9,000          80,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TRIM.Expo provides a more central tendency estimate of risk by 
accounting for variability in personal exposure. The table above shows 
a smaller number of individuals exposed at the higher levels of cancer 
risk and a slightly larger number of individuals exposed at a cancer 
risk of at least 1-in-1 million. While we performed this analysis for 
the worst-case facility, it is reasonable to infer that the risk 
distribution above would be similar to the remainder of the major 
source facilities. One limitation of this analysis is that we assume 
continuous 70-year exposure when calculating cancer risk, and some 
individuals are likely to move away from the facility. However, given 
the large number of area source dry cleaners nation wide, and the 
consequent ubiquity of PCE exposure, it is unlikely that the PCE 
exposure of individuals moving out of the TRIM.Expo study area would 
fall to zero.
    For illustrative purposes, below we provide estimates of individual 
inhalation cancer risk based on different assumptions regarding 
exposure duration. In contrast to the TRIM.Expo estimates above, the 
risk estimates below do not account for personal activity patterns and 
assume that individuals receive continuous exposure for the duration 
noted.

         Table 4.--Estimates of Individual Inhalation Cancer Risk Based on Different Exposure Durations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Assumed exposure duration \1\
              Estimated lifetime cancer risk              ------------------------------------------------------
                                                               70         50         30         20         10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk per Million (CalEPA)................................      2,400      1,700      1,030        700        340
Risk per Million (OPPTS).................................        300        210        130         90        40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Risk estimates derived using maximum exposure concentration.

D. What are the options for reducing risk, their costs, and risk 
reduction impacts for major sources?

    We evaluated several methods for reducing risks. These methods 
include enhanced LDAR and three emission control technologies.
    Enhanced LDAR. Enhanced LDAR would require the facility owner or 
operator to use a portable PCE gas analyzer to perform leak checks on a 
monthly basis. Two major sources and several State and local agencies 
currently use a photoionization detector, one type of gas analyzer, for 
leak inspections. The detection probe is moved slowly along the 
equipment part, and if PCE is detected, the device gives a 
concentration reading of the leak. The proposed leak definition is a 
concentration of 25 ppm. Portable gas analyzers cost about $3,300 and 
have a 10-year life expectancy. The facility would be required to 
continue to perform the weekly perceptible leak checks as required by 
the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. A nominal amount of additional labor 
would be required as a result of the proposed requirement to use a gas 
analyzer. We estimated 1 hour of labor per machine per month to perform 
the leak inspection. The estimated total capital cost to the industry 
to establish an enhanced LDAR program is $40,000, with a annual cost 
savings of $390,000. The cost savings is due to reduced PCE 
consumption.
    Control Technologies. Three types of emission control technologies 
can be used to reduce emissions from dry cleaning machines. The first 
two are a refrigerated condenser and a secondary carbon adsorber. The 
third technology is a PCE sensor and lockout. By using the first two 
control technologies together, and by operating them properly, a 
significant amount of PCE can be recovered.
    Refrigerated condensers are the most effective method for reducing 
PCE from the drying cycle. They are used to condense PCE vapor for 
reuse. By operating at lower temperatures than water-cooled condensers, 
refrigerated condensers recover more PCE from the drying air and reduce 
emissions. By the end of the cool-down cycle, refrigerated condensers 
can reduce PCE concentrations in the drum to between 2,000 and 8,600 
ppm. Refrigerated condensers require relatively little maintenance, 
needing only to have their refrigerant recharged and to have lint 
removed from the coils (yearly or even less frequently).
    A secondary carbon adsorber controls the PCE emissions during the 
final stage of the dry cleaning cycle just prior to the drum door 
opening. A carbon adsorber removes organic compounds from air by 
adsorption onto a bed of activated carbon as the air passes over the 
bed. Carbon adsorbers have a PCE removal efficiency of 95 percent or 
greater. Properly designed and operated secondary adsorbers have been 
shown to reduce the PCE concentration in the drum from several thousand 
ppm to less

[[Page 75892]]

than 100 ppm, and in some cases, to less than 10 ppm. Most new dry 
cleaning machines sold today are equipped with secondary carbon 
adsorbers. Carbon adsorbers require periodic desorption to recover PCE 
and maintain their peak PCE collection efficiency.
    The technologies currently in use by major and area source dry 
cleaners include vented dry-to-dry machines with water-cooled 
condensers and carbon adsorbers, non-vented (closed-loop) dry-to-dry 
machines with refrigerated condensers, non-vented dry-to-dry machines 
with refrigerated condensers and secondary carbon adsorbers and 
transfer machines. To meet a standard requiring a refrigerated 
condenser and secondary carbon adsorber, existing dry cleaning machines 
without this control could be retrofitted, or new replacement machines 
could be purchased depending on the remaining useful life of each 
existing machine. The costs to add control technologies range from 
$13,000 to $40,000 per machine, depending on the size of the existing 
machine and the level of control of the machine. Machine replacement 
costs are approximately $900 to $1,000 per pound of capacity. 
Additional analysis of costs can be found in the Background Information 
Document in the public docket.
    A PCE sensor is the third control technology used in machines with 
a secondary carbon adsorber. The sensor controls the carbon adsorption 
cycle to achieve a set PCE concentration in the drum. This device uses 
a single-beam infrared photometer to measure the concentration of PCE 
in the drum, and prolongs the carbon adsorption cycle until the 
concentration set point is achieved. An interlock (lock-out) ensures 
that the PCE set-point has been attained before the machine door can be 
opened.
    Regulatory Options. We considered three options for reducing risk 
from major source dry cleaners. Option I would require all major 
sources to use an enhanced LDAR program and have dry-to-dry machines 
with a refrigerated condenser and a secondary carbon adsorber. Option 
II would require a PCE sensor and lock-out in addition to the Option I 
controls. Option III would require no PCE emissions from major sources 
(a ban on the use of PCE).
    Table 5 of this preamble shows the costs and risk estimates for 
each regulatory option. The population risk estimates were extrapolated 
from the seven modeled facilities to all 15 major source facilities. 
The cost estimates are also for all 15 major source facilities.

 Table 5.--Risk Estimates and Costs of Control Options for Major Sources Based on 70-year Exposure Duration \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Parameter                 MACT level           Option I            Option II          Option III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIR from facility with highest    2,400-in-1 million  270-in-1 million..  150-in-1 million..  NA.\2\
 risk (CalEPA URE).
MIR from facility with highest    300-in-1 million..  30-in-1 million...  20-in-1 million...  NA.
 risk (OPPTS URE).
Maximum HQ from facility with     2.................  0.2...............  0.1...............  NA.
 highest risk.
---------------------------------
   Population at Risk Across All Facilities \3\ (Population Risk Range Represents Difference Between OPPTS and
                                                   CalEPA URE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1-in-1 million................  35,000 to 375,000.  2,000 to 55,000...  1,000 to 26,000...  NA.
> 10-in-1 million...............  2,000 to 27,000...  20 to 1,800.......  10 to 900.........  NA.
> 100-in-1 million..............  10 to 1,200.......  0 to 13...........  0 to 6............  NA.
Total population exposed (within                           9,300,000                          NA.
 10 km).
Capital Cost ($1000)............  ..................  830...............  5,700.............  8,200.
Annualized Cost ($1000).........  ..................  (220).............  420...............  Not Estimated.
Emission Reduction (tons per      ..................  209...............  249 (40             293 (44
 year (tpy)).                                                              incremental).       incremental).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this table, risk estimates are based on both OPPTS and the CalEPA URE. All risk and population estimates
  are rounded.
\2\ NA = not applicable. Under Option III, risk from PCE would be eliminated, however, potential risks from
  alternative solvents were not analyzed.
\3\ Modeled to 10 km.

E. What is our proposed decision on acceptable risk and ample margin of 
safety for major sources?

    Section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA states that if the MACT standards 
for a source emitting 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 * * * to less than one in 
one million, the Administrator shall promulgate [residual risk] 
standards * * * for such source category.

    The residual risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from 
PCE dry cleaners is estimated at 1-in-1 million or greater at each 
major source dry cleaner modeled. Major source dry cleaners subject to 
the proposed rule emit a possible to probable human carcinogen, and, as 
shown in table 3 of this preamble, we estimate that the MIR associated 
with the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP limits is between 300-in-1 million 
and 2,400-in-1 million. Therefore, we believe a residual risk standard 
is necessary.
    In the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, the first step of the residual risk 
decision framework is the determination of acceptable risk (i.e., are 
the estimated risks due to emissions from these facilities 
``acceptable''). This determination is based on health considerations 
only, without consideration of costs. The determination of what 
represents an ``acceptable'' risk level is based on a judgment of 
``what risks are acceptable in the world in which we live'' (54 FR 
38045, 1987, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at DC Circuit Courts 
Decision in NRDC vs. EPA, 824 F.2d at 1165) recognizing that our world 
is not risk-free.
    In the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, we stated that a MIR of approximately 
100-in-1 million should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 
acceptable risks associated with an individual source of pollution. We 
characterized the MIR as ``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 explained that this measure 
of risk ``is an estimate of the upper bound of risk based on 
conservative assumptions, such as continuous exposure for 24 hours per 
day for 70 years.'' We acknowledge that

[[Page 75893]]

the MIR ``does not necessarily reflect the true risk, but displays a 
conservative risk level which is an upper bound that is unlikely to be 
exceeded.''
    Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using 
MIR 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.'' Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 million 
provides a benchmark for judging the acceptability of MIR, but does not 
constitute a rigid line for making that determination. In establishing 
a presumption for the acceptability of maximum risk, rather than a 
rigid line for acceptability, we explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 
that risk levels should also be weighed with a series of other health 
measures and factors, including the following:
     The numbers of persons exposed within each individual 
lifetime risk range and associated incidence within, typically, a 50 km 
(about 30 miles) 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.
     The overall incidence of cancer or other serious health 
effects within the exposed population.
    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 MIR alone.
    Based on use of the criteria identified above, we judge the level 
of risk resulting from regulatory option I to be acceptable for this 
source category (table 3 of this preamble). This option requires dry 
cleaning machines at all major sources to have an enhanced LDAR program 
and closed-loop, dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated condensers and 
secondary carbon adsorbers. The calculated MIR is between 30-in-1 
million and 270-in-1 million. While the upper-end of this risk range is 
greater than the presumptively acceptable level of MIR under the 1989 
Benzene NESHAP formulation (100-in-1 million), we also considered other 
factors in making our determination of acceptability, as directed by 
the 1989 Benzene NESHAP. The principal factors that influenced our 
decision were that nearly all of the population living within 10 km of 
each facility receive cancer risk at less than 1-in-1 million. 
Considering the very small number of individuals that are estimated to 
receive greater than 100-in-1 million cancer risk coupled with the 
exposure and dose-response assessment methodology that was 
conservatively health protective, it is likely that no actual persons 
are exposed at risk levels above 100-in-1 million. Among the exposed 
population of 9.3 million individuals, a maximum of between 0 and 13 
people are estimated to receive risks of more than 100-in-1 million. 
Under option I, the exposure to maximum exposed individuals would be 
reduced from between 300-in-1 million to 2,400-in-1 million to between 
30-in-1 million and 270-in-1 million. Total combined cancer incidence 
would be between 0.002 and 0.003 cases per year for all seven major 
source facilities that were modeled. In addition, no significant non-
cancer health effects are predicted. The maximum HQ would be reduced 
from 2 to 0.2, and no adverse ecological impacts are predicted under 
option I. In addition, we expect that PCE usage will continue to drop 
as has been the trend over the past 10 years. This trend has been 
caused by the greater use of alternative solvents, older machines at 
the end of their useful lives being replaced with newer, lower emitting 
dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated condensers and secondary carbon 
adsorbers, and State and industry programs that improve machine 
efficiency and reduce PCE consumption. All of these factors will cause 
risks to continue to decrease in the future in the absence of further 
Federal regulatory requirements. Therefore, we have determined that the 
risks associated with regulatory option I are acceptable after 
considering MIR, the population exposed at different risk levels, the 
projected absence of noncancer effects and adverse ecological effects, 
and the projected decline in PCE usage.
    While not relevant for determining the acceptable risk level, the 
national capital costs of regulatory option I are $830,000 and 
annualized cost savings of $220,000. Most facilities would recognize a 
cost savings primarily from implementing the enhanced LDAR program. 
Leak detection and repair is a pollution prevention approach where 
reduced emissions translate into less PCE consumption and reduced 
operating costs because facilities would need to purchase less PCE. The 
capital costs for individual facilities would range from $0 to 
$313,000, with a median cost of $51,000. Annualized costs would range 
from a cost savings of $106,000 per year to a cost of $22,000 per year.
    The second step in the residual risk decision framework is the 
determination of standards that are equal to or lower than the 
acceptable risk level and that protect public health with an ample 
margin of safety. In making this determination, we considered the 
estimate of health risk and other health information along with 
additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control, 
including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological 
feasibility, uncertainties, and other relevant factors, consistent with 
the approach of the 1989 Benzene NESHAP.
    We evaluated regulatory option II as the first level of control 
more stringent than the acceptable risk level for this source category. 
Our analysis showed a relatively small incremental risk reduction 
beyond that achieved by option I. Under option I, one of the seven 
modeled facilities would pose risks greater than 100-in-1 million using 
the CalEPA URE and no facility would pose risks greater than 100-in-1 
million using the OPPTS URE. Under option II, this facility would still 
have risks above 100-in-1 million using the CalEPA URE only. For the 
other six modeled facilities, the risks would remain in the range of 
10-in-1 million under option II using the CalEPA URE and risks would 
drop below the range of 10-in-1 million for three of seven facilities 
using the OPPTS URE.
    The national capital cost for option II (all 15 major sources) is 
$5.7 million with an annualized cost of $420,000. These costs include 
retrofitting PCE sensors and lockout systems on machines that were 
manufactured in 1998 or later, and the costs of replacing machines 
installed before 1998, which cannot reliably meet the same level of 
emission reduction with a PCE sensor.
    Overall, option II has high costs considering the relatively low 
risk reduction for most of the major sources. These costs do not 
achieve a significant risk reduction for most sources. Consequently, we 
determined that requiring the addition of a PCE sensor and lock-out was 
not a reasonable or economically feasible option for all major sources.
    We also evaluated regulatory option III, a ban on PCE use, as a 
level of control more stringent than the acceptable risk level for this 
source category. This would completely eliminate risk from PCE for the 
population around the 15 major source facilities by essentially 
eliminating the sources of PCE. The costs to eliminate PCE usage at 
major sources would require a capital cost to the industry of 
approximately $8.2 million. This

[[Page 75894]]

estimate was based on the total cost of replacing all PCE machines with 
machines using an alternative solvent (not an incremental cost of a new 
PCE machine versus a new alternative solvent machine). Alternative 
solvents currently being used in the industry include cyclic siloxanes, 
liquid carbon dioxide, wetcleaning, and synthetic hydrocarbon. There 
are some uncertainties that these solvents do not have the cleaning 
power (kB value) of PCE for the heavy soiled or greasy garments like 
leather work gloves and aprons which are the typical garments cleaned 
by industrial major sources. There are some fabrics that cannot be 
cleaned in the alternative solvents. There are also some uncertainties 
about whether the waste from alternative solvent systems would be 
classified as hazardous. Alternative solvents have a role in the 
industry, and are being used for certain cleaning applications. 
However, there is not enough experience to determine that these 
technologies are sufficiently demonstrated for all applications such 
that PCE should be eliminated from the marketplace. Therefore, we have 
determined that regulatory option III is not a viable option at this 
time considering cost, economic impacts, technical feasibility, and 
uncertainties.
    Based on the information analyzed for the three options, we are 
proposing that option I provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health for major sources in the dry cleaning industry.

F. What are the risks from typical area sources?

    We are not mandated to develop residual risk standards for area 
sources regulated by GACT. Under our discretion, we have developed 
estimates of the remaining risk for these sources. In estimating the 
inhalation cancer risk that area sources pose, we considered the risks 
from facilities co-located with residences (co-residential area 
sources) separately from those located in all other settings (typical 
area sources).
    To assess risks from area sources, we first analyzed readily 
available data. The 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) provides 
census tract level estimates of cancer risk and noncancer hazard across 
the United States for a subset of the 188 HAP. Using this assessment, 
we were able to generate a course-scale estimate of population risk for 
PCE area source dry cleaners by scaling the NATA cancer for PCE by the 
relative contribution of area source cleaners to PCE emissions. See 
table 6 below for a summary of the NATA-derived estimated risks for 
area source cleaners.

            Table 6.--Estimated NATA-Derived Population Cancer Risk for PCE Area Source Dry Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Estimated cancer risk at least:
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                       Dose-response value                           100-in-1         10-in-1         1-in-1
                                                                      million         million         million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPPTS...........................................................               0               0         960,000
CalEPA..........................................................               0         400,000      56,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This assessment provides a screening-level estimate of PCE risk to 
the general population.
    Next, we performed a ``model facility'' assessment. In this 
modeling scenario, we used information regarding typical facility size 
and dispersion parameters and average and upper-end emissions of a 
facility meeting the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP to create a set of 
``model facilities.'' See the risk characterization memorandum in the 
public docket for a complete description of the two modeling 
methodologies. Table 7 of this preamble summarizes the cancer and 
noncancer risk for typical area sources (excluding transfer machines).

 Table 7.--Estimated Incremental Lifetime Individual Cancer Risk and Non-Cancer Hazard for Typical Area Sources
                          Using a Range of Emissions and Worst-Case Dispersion Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Model facility emissions
                                      --------------------------------------------------
            Risk estimate                                         99th percentile  (4       Maximum  (8 tons)
                                         Average  (.05 tons)             tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIR (OPPTS URE)......................  2-in-1 million.........  20-in-1 million........  30-in-1 million.
MIR (CalEPA URE).....................  15-in-1 million........  120-in-1 million.......  220-in-1 million.
Noncancer HQ 1.......................  0.001..................  0.07...................  0.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 HQ estimates have been rounded.

G. What are the options for reducing risk, their costs, and risk 
reduction impacts for typical area sources?

    We evaluated three control measures to reduce risks from typical 
area sources. These measures are an enhanced LDAR program for area 
sources, elimination of emissions from existing transfer machines, and 
the use of a refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber (same 
control technologies described above for major sources). These control 
measures have been commercially demonstrated at area source dry 
cleaners in the United States. The three control measures were used to 
develop two regulatory options to reduce risk.
    The enhanced LDAR program for area sources would require the use of 
a halogenated leak detector instead of a gas analyzer, which is being 
proposed for major sources. The cost of a halogenated leak detector 
($250) is significantly less than a gas analyzer ($3,300). A gas 
analyzer is a more accurate device that provides a quantitative reading 
of PCE concentration. This device can be particularly useful in 
pinpointing leaks at major sources that have high background 
concentrations of PCE. The halogenated leak detector is a non-
quantitative device that provides an audible or visual display when it 
detects a leak above 25 ppm. We have concluded that a halogenated leak 
detector is sufficient for detecting leaks at area source dry cleaners 
and will provide a significant improvement in reducing emissions 
compared to the

[[Page 75895]]

current requirement to inspect for perceptible leaks only.
    Transfer machines have substantially higher emissions than dry-to-
dry machines. The 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP effectively bans new 
transfer machines, but existing machines were grandfathered. In 1993, 
we determined that the capital costs required to replace all transfer 
machines would have created an adverse economic impact on a substantial 
portion of the industry, especially small businesses that had recently 
purchased new transfer machines. We estimate that about 200 transfer 
machines remain in use within the population of 28,000 dry cleaning 
machines located at area sources (estimated one PCE dry cleaning 
machine per facility with approximately 28,000 facilities). Most of 
these machines will be at or near the end of their useful economic life 
by the time final rule requirements are promulgated. The typical life 
of a dry cleaning machine is 10 to 15 years. By the end of 2006, the 
newest transfer machines in the industry will be 13 years old. 
Replacing these machines with new machines meeting the requirements for 
new sources under the proposed amendments would reduce PCE emissions 
substantially.
    We developed two regulatory options to evaluate area source risk 
reductions. Option I would require enhanced LDAR and eliminate 
emissions from existing transfer machines by requiring that they be 
replaced with new machines. This option would apply to both large and 
small area sources. Option II would require all area sources to use a 
refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber in addition to 
option I. Table 8 of this preamble summarizes the cancer and noncancer 
risks from these control options.

            Table 8.--Estimated Maximum\1\ Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard for Typical Area Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Control option
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Risk metric                                                                    Option II--LDAR +
                                             1993 NESHAP             Option I--LDAR         secondary controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk (OPPTS  30-in-1 million........  20-in-1 million........  15-in-1 million.
 URE).
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk         220-in-1 million.......  175-in-1 million.......  110-in-1 million
 (CalEPA URE).
Noncancer HQ.........................  0.1....................  0.1....................  0.1
Capital Cost--($1,000,000)...........  .......................  $12.4..................  $85.7
Annualized Cost--($1,000,000)........  .......................  ($2.7).................  $7.9
Emission Reduction (tpy).............  .......................  3,236..................  5,749
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Assumes a facility using a dry-to-dry machine with a refrigerated condenser emitting 8 tons of PCE a year
  (highest known emitting dry-to-dry machine). Risks from transfer machines are not included in the tables. The
  costs and risk estimates in this table do not consider the impacts of future trends of declining PCE usage.

H. What is our proposal for addressing the remaining emissions for 
typical area sources?

    We are considering adopting a residual risk decision process for 
area sources which is based on that used for major sources. This 
involves first determining an acceptable level of risk to the public 
and then determining an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, considering costs and economic impacts of controls, 
technological feasibility, uncertainties, and other relevant factors. 
We request comments on this approach for area sources.
    As part of this rulemaking, we have determined that exposure to 
emissions under the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP constitutes an acceptable 
level of risk for typical area sources. Currently, we estimate that 
more than 98 percent of 28,000 existing dry cleaners use a dry-to-dry 
machine with a refrigerated condenser to comply with the 1993 Dry 
Cleaning NESHAP or State emission standards. Using the most health 
protective modeling assumptions for meteorology and location, the model 
facility analysis indicated that the highest known emitting area source 
would pose cancer risks of between 30-in-1 million and 220-in-1 
million. The risk from the vast majority of area sources would be 
substantially less. For example, cancer risk for the typical area 
source, which emits approximately 0.5 ton of PCE per year, is estimated 
at between 4-in-1 million and 15-in-1 million. In addition, the 
assessment showed no significant acute health effects (HQ of 1.0 for 
the highest emitting area source facility). Considering the relatively 
low level of risk posed by the great majority of area sources, the 
projected absence of significant noncancer and ecological effects, and 
the projected decline in PCE usage, we believe that the 1993 Dry 
Cleaning NESHAP level of control results in an acceptable level of risk 
to the public.
    Replacing transfer machines with new dry-to-dry equipment would 
reduce risks from the potentially highest-emitting sources. Under 
either option I or II, transfer machines would be replaced with dry-to-
dry machines with a refrigerated condenser and a secondary carbon 
adsorber (i.e., the proposed new source requirements for area sources, 
which are discussed below).
    For dry-to-dry machines, equipment leaks are the largest source of 
emissions, particularly from older dry cleaning machines. While the 
perceptible leaks program under the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP may 
prevent major leaks, a substantial emission reduction can be achieved 
by earlier leak detection using an instrument like a halogenated 
hydrocarbon leak detector.
    Therefore, to protect public health with an ample margin of safety, 
we are proposing to eliminate the use of transfer machines and require 
an enhanced LDAR program for dry-to-dry machines (option I). This 
option would reduce PCE emissions by 3,200 tpy and reduce risks to the 
public from between 30-in-1 million and 220-in-1 million to between 20-
in-1 million and 175-in-1 million.
    Option I would require total capital costs of $12 million. The 
enhanced LDAR program would cost about $5 million. About 20,000 
facilities would be required to purchase a halogenated hydrocarbon 
detector at a cost of $250 each. About 200 facilities would be required 
to replace their existing transfer machines with dry-to-dry machines 
with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorber at a cost of about 
$36,000 each for a total industry cost of $7.3 million. Annually, 
option I is expected to result in a cost savings to industry of about 
$2.7 million per year. Cost saving would be realized because both 
replacement of transfer machines and enhanced LDAR will reduce annual 
PCE consumption. The reduction in annual PCE consumption at the 200 
businesses that would replace transfer machines is more than sufficient 
to

[[Page 75896]]

offset the annualized cost of the new equipment. In particular, we 
believe most of the transfer machines are at the end of their useful 
life and it would be economically beneficial for the facilities to 
replace the transfer machines with dry-to-dry machines. Thus, we 
believe the economic impacts to the affected businesses and facilities 
are negligible. Finally, these costs and risk estimates do not consider 
the impacts of future trends of declining PCE usage.
    We are not proposing the option of requiring existing area sources 
to install secondary carbon adsorbers (option II). Secondary carbon 
adsorbers would reduce maximum risks at the highest risk area sources 
from between 20-in-1 million and 175-in-1 million under option I to 
between 15-in-1 million and 110-in-1 million under option II. Under 
option II, about 7,500 facilities would be required to raise capital to 
install carbon adsorbers (27 percent of the industry). For these 
sources, the capital costs for compliance would be about $85 million 
with an annualized cost of about $8 million. The capital cost for 
individual facilities would range from $4,000 to $45,000. A majority of 
sources that would be affected by option II are small businesses. For 
these small businesses, the annualized costs would average from 10 to 
20 percent of sales, and this amount is much higher than the average 
profit per unit of sales that small dry cleaners normally experience (1 
to 3 percent). This cost would lead to a high number of small 
businesses owning affected facilities that will likely close due to the 
lack of available capital for the needed investment in carbon 
adsorbers. Therefore, we are not proposing to require a secondary 
carbon adsorber on existing area sources, because the risk reduction 
would be relatively minor and the costs would impose adverse economic 
impacts on a number of small businesses.
    We do not believe that the proposed requirements for area sources 
pose more than a minimal burden; however, we specifically ask for 
comment on methods by which EPA could focus the additional regulatory 
requirements being proposed by this rule to only those area sources 
(typical and co-residential) which pose significant risks to human 
health. For example, we seek comments on whether there could be a 
methodology by which facilities could conduct site specific risk 
assessments to demonstrate that their PCE emissions pose cancer risk 
levels that are less than 1-in-1 million, with a HI of less than 1, and 
with no acute human health risks or adverse environmental effects, and 
thereby avoid the additional requirements that would otherwise apply 
under the proposed rule revisions. Comments should address whether such 
an approach is feasible (for example, if facilities would be able to 
conduct these risk assessments), the legal authority for such an 
approach, the methodology sources would use for conducting risk 
assessments, the specific criteria by which potential ``low-risk'' 
sources would be evaluated, the mechanism for evaluating and 
determining whether source risk assessments meet those criteria, how 
the process would be implemented by Federal and/or State and local 
agencies, how it would be enforced (for example, through a permitting 
program or other regulatory structure to ensure that any sources found 
to be ``low-risk'' remain so), and what would be the consequences if 
and when a source, for whatever reason, is found to no longer qualify 
as a ``low-risk'' source.

I. What are the risks from co-residential area sources?

    Residents living in the same building with a dry cleaner may 
receive significantly higher exposures to PCE than people not living 
above or in the same building as a dry cleaner. We estimate there are 
approximately 1,300 co-residential dry cleaning facilities in the 
United States. Residents in these buildings can receive elevated PCE 
concentrations because PCE vapor travels through the building walls and 
up elevator and pipe shafts into residences. Emissions of PCE also can 
enter from the ambient air into residences via open windows. Even after 
the dry cleaner closes, PCE absorbed onto surfaces can continue to be 
emitted throughout the day and night. To assess potential risks, we 
used indoor air monitoring data collected by the New York Department of 
Health and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 
(NYSDEC) between 2001-2003 as part of an epidemiological study 
examining neurological endpoints. In considering the New York data, it 
should be recognized that the data resulted from an epidemiological 
study, and dry cleaner building and apartment inclusion and exclusion 
criteria influenced buildings that were ultimately sampled. Also, 
certain buildings were identified in order to potentially increase the 
likelihood of finding apartments with elevated PCE levels. Data 
collected during this period indicate that resident exposures ranged 
from a geometric mean of 33 ug/m\3\ to a maximum of 5,000 ug/m\3\. The 
New York Department of Health collected these data during the final 
implementation of title 6 NYCRR Part 232 rules, which require the use 
of a refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber, and a vapor 
barrier or room enclosure around co-residential dry cleaning machines. 
We extrapolated these 24-hour samples to lifetime exposure to estimate 
inhalation cancer risk and noncancer hazard. For a full description of 
the methodology that we used, see the risk characterization memorandum 
in the public docket. Table 9 of this preamble summarizes the 
inhalation cancer risk and noncancer hazard of co-residential area 
sources.

     Table 9.--Estimated Incremental Lifetime Individual Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard for Co-residential Area Sources Using a Range of Monitored
                                                                        Exposures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Distribution of Monitored Exposure
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Risk metric \3\             Lower 5th  percentile                                                       Upper 95th
                                               \2\                   Median              Geometric mean           percentile              Maximum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk       4-in-1 million........  10-in-1 million.......  20-in-1 million......  500-in-1 million.....  4,000-in-1 million.
 (OPPTSURE).
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk       30-in-1 million.......  50-in-1 million.......  200-in-1 million.....  4,000-in-1 million...  30,000-in-1 million.
 (CalEPAURE).
Noncancer HQ \1\...................  0.02..................  0.06..................  0.1..................  3....................  20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HQ estimates have been rounded.
\2\ The lowest 5th percentile of exposure is equal to the non-detect limit of the monitors, which is 5 ug/m \3\.
\3\ These estimates reflect only facilities in full compliance with Title 6 NYCRR Part 232.


[[Page 75897]]

    To better characterize inhalation cancer risk among residents of 
apartments co-located with area source cleaners, we performed a 
sensitivity analysis in which we varied the assumed exposure duration. 
Table 10 illustrates the results from this analysis.

Table 10.--Estimated High-End Cancer Risks for Residents of Co-located Apartments: Exposure Duration Sensitivity
                                                  Analysis \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Assumed Exposure Duration
 Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     70 years        50 years        30 years        20 years        10 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk per million (CalEPAURE)....           4,000           3,000           2,000           1,000             600
Risk per million (OPPTSURE).....             500             400             200             100              80
HQ..............................               7               5               3               2              1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Inhalation cancer risk estimates using the 95th percentile exposure level range from a maximum of between 4,000
  and 500-in-1 million, assuming 70-year expsure to between 600 and 80-in-1 million assuming 10-year experience.

\1\ Cancer risk estimates derived using 95th percentile PCE exposures for monitoring data from facilities in
  full compliance with NYSDEC requirements.

    The PCE exposure concentrations presented in table 11 of this 
preamble show the potential risk levels that co-residential sources may 
pose. The MIR was predicted at between 4,000-in-1 million and 30,000-
in-1 million, which is higher than the maximum risk at both major 
sources and typical area sources. This table suggests that maximum co-
residential area source risks are about 13 times higher than the 
maximum major source risks and about 140 times higher than the maximum 
typical area source risk.

                  Table 11.--Comparison of PCE Exposure Concentrations by Type of Facility \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Facility            Co-residential area source      Typical area source            Major source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Exposure              5,000 \1\.................  37........................  405
 Concentration (ug/m \3\).
Geometric Mean Exposure       33........................  1.........................  1.3
 Concentration (ug/m \3\).
Maximum Inhalation Risk (per  3,000 to 30,000 \2\.......  30 to 220.................  300 to 2,400
 million).
Maximum Noncancer HQ........  20........................  0.1.......................  2
Geometric Mean Noncancer HQ.  0.1.......................  0.004.....................  0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New York Department of Health monitoring data.
\2\ Inhalation cancer risks were extrapolated from 24-hour monitoring data, assuming continuous exposure for 70
  years at the maximum monitored concentration.
\3\ Estimate range represents difference between estimated risk using OPPTS and CalEPA URE.

J. What is our proposed decision on co-residential area sources?

    We are proposing two options for co-residential area sources in 
today's proposal. We expect to select one of these options, with 
possible modifications in response to comments, in the final rule. The 
first option addresses both risks and technological developments for 
new co-residential area sources as a combined CAA Section 112(f) 
residual risk and Section 112(d)(6) rulemaking, and is described 
further in this section. This is consistent with the approach we are 
taking for typical area sources and for major sources. However, for 
existing co-residential area sources under this option, we are not 
exercising our discretion to impose a section 112(f) residual risk 
standard, but only a section 112(d)(6) standard. We recognize that 
developing residual risk standards for area sources is discretionary 
under the CAA, and that emissions reductions can also be achieved under 
CAA section 112(d)(6) that do not rely upon our section 112(f) 
authority. Therefore, we are also proposing a second option to achieve 
emissions reductions through a technology based standard for both 
existing and new co-residential sources relying only on our Section 
112(d)(6) authority, as discussed below and in section III.K. We 
request comment on alternative approaches that might protect public 
health with an ample margin of safety.
    As our first option, we are proposing different requirements for 
new and existing co-residential sources. For new sources, we propose 
not to allow any new co-residential machines that emit PCE. Our 
proposal is based on the high-end estimated MIR of between 4,000-in-1 
million and 30,000-in-1 million, and on our conclusion that risks from 
new co-residential sources should be substantially reduced. These risk 
estimates are based on monitored concentrations taken from apartments 
above co-residential dry cleaners with the level of equipment control 
required by NYSDEC in their title 6 NYCRR Part 232 rules (e.g., a 
refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber, and a vapor 
barrier or room enclosure).
    For new co-residential sources, the most stringent possible control 
option with the greatest risk reduction is a prohibition of PCE use at 
such sources. This option would eliminate PCE risks for new sources and 
require that any new dry cleaning machines located in a residential 
building would have to use an alternative cleaning solvent. We believe 
the owner/operator can choose from other alternative solvent dry 
cleaning systems to use in a residential building.
    The national capital costs of this regulatory option for new co-
residential sources are $8.6 million, and the annualized costs are 
approximately $950,000. These cost estimates are based on the 
assumption that existing facilities will replace PCE machines that have 
reached the end of their useful lives (15 years) and are estimated for 
facilities affected within the first 5 years after the final rule takes 
effect. These costs reflect the incremental cost between replacing 
existing machines with PCE machines with refrigerated condensers and 
carbon adsorbers, and replacing them with machines using hydrocarbon 
solvents.

[[Page 75898]]

This analysis includes costs for all affected facilities, such as the 
cost incurred to install fire protection sprinklers required by most 
applicable fire codes to operate a hydrocarbon technology, that would 
not be necessary with other options. Cost estimates would be much lower 
if facilities using this option have sprinkler systems in place, or if 
they choose a less costly alternative garment cleaning option utilizing 
non-flammable solvents, or conducting dry cleaning operations off-site 
from the co-residential facility. We estimate that this control option 
for new co-residential sources may, after about 15 years, result in the 
elimination of cancer risks from all co-residential sources, as 
existing sources would be replaced by new non-PCE sources. This means 
that maximum individual risk levels due to these sources would decline 
from between 30,000- and 4,000-in-1 million to 0; average individual 
risk would decline from between 1,000- and 200-in-1 million to 0; and 
annual incidence would decline from between 2.2 and 0.3 cases per year 
to 0. These risk reduction estimates for all co-residential dry 
cleaners are subject to a number of limitations, the greatest of which 
are likely: (1) The degree to which the small sampled subset of co-
residential dry cleaners (16) is representative of the full set (about 
1,300) of all co-residential dry cleaners; (2) our uncertainty of the 
size of the affected population; and (3) the possible range of cancer 
potency factors used in our analysis, which is reflected in the ranges 
of the risk metrics reported above.
    We also recognize that a proposal to prohibit new co-residential 
sources could encourage continued operation of existing co-residential 
PCE machines beyond their useful lives rather than replacement with new 
machines. We request comment on a sunset provision, where, after some 
period of time that reflects the typical lifetime of a dry cleaning 
machine, existing co-residential sources would have to be replaced with 
new machines that do not emit PCE.
    As part of this first option, we are proposing no additional 
control requirements for existing co-residential dry cleaners beyond 
the proposed requirements for existing area sources. However, we also 
request comment on the appropriateness of adopting other alternatives. 
In particular, we are continuing to analyze the potential health risks 
at co-residential sources and the range of options to reduce these 
risks. Options under consideration range from voluntary initiatives to 
regulatory action. About 1,100 of the estimated 1,300 co-residential 
sources are located in New York and California. These sources are 
controlled with the technology equivalent to the requirements of the 
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP for new major sources; plus, the facilities in 
New York have installed room enclosures to reduce exposure from 
residual emissions.
    At this time we have limited data on co-residential sources outside 
of New York and California. We do not know how representative the 
dataset is of all facilities in New York City. We do not know how many 
people are exposed at other sources and if the exposure and risk levels 
in other parts of the United States are similar to those in New York 
City buildings. We have little information on the distribution of PCE 
concentrations, the number of persons living in co-residential 
buildings, or the number of persons exposed to various PCE 
concentration levels. Based on the New York monitoring data, we know 
the level of PCE concentrations can vary substantially within co-
residential buildings. While we believe that the dataset used for this 
risk assessment represents a high-quality set of measurements which is 
appropriate for estimating risks, we are also aware that the dataset 
may contain a selection bias due to the fact that the study from which 
the data were taken was an epidemiological study aimed at identifying 
high exposures within minority and economically-disadvantaged 
populations. Moreover, we are also aware that variable attention to 
work practices, difficulties in achieving compliance with newly-
installed equipment, and poor ventilation in sampled apartments may 
also have increased the measured concentration values relative to the 
remaining population of apartments co-located with area source dry 
cleaners. Thus, we specifically request comment on the appropriateness 
of using this dataset to develop a risk assessment which represents the 
population of co-residential facilities. We also request any additional 
data that might be used to characterize these risks.
    If a long-term time series dataset of concentration measurements 
were available, we would estimate chronic exposure based on it to take 
into account the true temporal variability of exposures. However, we do 
not have such a dataset. Instead, we base our exposure and risk 
estimates on snapshot data available, recognizing that an extrapolation 
from short-term monitoring values can lead to an upward bias of the 
high-end chronic exposures and risks and a downward bias of the low-end 
chronic exposures and risks. We request comment on ways to minimize 
these biases. In evaluating the potential impact of NYSDEC 
requirements, our analysis focused on those facilities which were 
deemed to be in compliance with the NYSDEC part 232 regulations. 
However, it is not always clear from the available data what the exact 
compliance status of the facilities was at the time that measurements 
were taken. For example, we note that the highest measured exposure 
level (5,000 ug/m3), which is associated with a facility that was 
reported to be in full compliance with the NYSDEC regulations at the 
time of the measurements, has been called into question by industry 
stakeholders based on evidence that the facility was inspected and 
found to be out of compliance (due to equipment operation problems) 
approximately 2 months after the measurements were taken. These 
problems were remedied and compliance was certified a week later. This 
uncertainty in exact compliance status leads to an uncertainty in 
whether the measured concentration values actually reflect a level of 
control consistent with implementation of the NYSDEC requirements. 
Thus, we request comment on whether and to what extent temporal 
variability or compliance problems among the facilities located in 
buildings with the sampled apartments may have biased the sampled 
measurements high or low and influenced the results of the risk 
assessment.
    We believe that the risk assessment underlying the proposal of our 
first option is appropriate for rulemaking purposes, however, given the 
uncertainties discussed above, we are proposing a second option solely 
under the authority of section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. We propose the 
NYSDEC title 6 NYCRR Part 232 rules (or similar standards) as the basis 
for control standards for both new and existing sources, instead of 
prohibiting any new co-residential machines that emit PCE and the 
standards proposed for typical area sources and existing co-residential 
sources. The NYSDEC requires that co-residential dry cleaning machines 
have refrigerated condensers and secondary carbon adsorbers, and that 
equipment be housed inside a vapor barrier with general ventilation to 
the outside air for both new and existing facilities. Facilities must 
conduct weekly leak inspections using a leak detection device such as a 
halogenated hydrocarbon detector. Facilities are required to obtain 
annual third party inspections by a professional engineer,

[[Page 75899]]

and must make available the most recent inspection report to interested 
individuals for their review. The NYSDEC also requires that the 
facility owner and/or manager and the dry cleaning machine operator be 
certified by an organization that offers a training program approved by 
the State agency. Most co-residential facilities meet the New York 
standards (of the 1,300 co-residential facilities nationwide, 
approximately 900 are in New York), but approximately 240 facilities 
across the country would need to upgrade their equipment to comply with 
this second proposal option. The capital cost of this option is 
approximately $3 million, and the annual cost is $0.5 million. These 
estimates include the cost for approximately 240 existing facilities to 
either upgrade or replace their existing equipment to include a 
refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber, install a vapor barrier and 
conduct the leak detection and repair described above. These estimates 
do not include the cost of third party inspections and operator 
training, so cost impacts may be understated. Emissions reduction is 
estimated to be about 48 tons per year from the use of refrigerated 
condensers and carbon adsorbers. Vapor barriers do not remove 
emissions, but contain them to help prevent exposures to emissions.
    For this second option, we request data on the emission levels, 
exposure, and risks associated with meeting the level of control 
required by the NYSDEC standards and for any other control options for 
co-residential sources that may substantially reduce emissions from co-
residential sources (e.g., periodic gasket replacement in lieu of 
inspections).

K. What determination is EPA proposing pursuant to review of the 1993 
Dry Cleaning NESHAP under CAA section 112(d)(6)?

    Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires us to review and revise MACT 
standards, as necessary, every 8 years, taking into account 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred during that time. If we find relevant changes, we may 
revise the MACT standards and develop additional standards. We do not 
interpret CAA section 112(d)(6) as requiring another analysis of MACT 
floors for existing and new sources.
    For major sources, we considered as a MACT alternative the same 
options considered above for residual risk (table 5 of this preamble). 
The use of a PCE sensor/lock system (option II on table 5 of this 
preamble) is an option more stringent than the level of control that we 
are proposing to protect the public from residual risks with an ample 
margin of safety. The system would reduce emissions by 40 tpy. Total 
capital costs are estimated to be $5.7 million for the 15 major sources 
with an annualized cost of $420,000. Additional analysis of costs can 
be found in the Background Information Document in the public docket. 
The incremental cost-effectiveness of the option is $17,000 per ton of 
PCE removed (overall, considering all 15 facilities). Consequently, we 
propose that requiring enhanced LDAR and a refrigerated condenser/
secondary carbon adsorber would meet the requirements for CAA section 
112(d)(6).
    Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA also requires that we review and, if 
necessary, revise the technology-based standards for area sources. The 
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP for area sources was based on the use of GACT. 
The options selected for evaluating GACT for existing area sources are 
the same two options that we discussed above; enhanced LDAR and 
eliminating transfer machines (option I on table 8 of this preamble), 
and the use of secondary carbon adsorbers (option II on table 8 of this 
preamble). Option I would reduce emissions by an estimated 3,200 tpy 
and would result in a net cost savings to area sources. Option II would 
reduce emissions by an additional 3,000 tpy. However, as explained 
above, retrofitting a secondary carbon adsorber would not be cost-
effective for many existing area source dry cleaners. Consequently, we 
propose that requiring enhanced LDAR and eliminating transfer machines 
at existing area sources would meet the requirements of CAA section 
112(d)(6).
    For new machines located at area source dry cleaners, we are 
proposing the use of refrigerated condensers, secondary carbon 
adsorbers, and enhanced LDAR. Requiring the use of secondary carbon 
adsorbers on new machines will not impose any significant new costs to 
the industry, because the majority of new machines today are sold with 
secondary carbon adsorbers. Vented machines, water-cooled condensers, 
and transfer machines are no longer sold. Many area source dry cleaners 
are buying this latest technology (dry-to-dry machine with refrigerated 
condenser and secondary carbon adsorber) because they are easier to 
operate, use less PCE, and produce less hazardous waste. In addition, 
several States require the use of this technology. A machine 
manufacturer stated that 70 percent of the new PCE machines sold in the 
year 2000 were dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated condensers and 
secondary carbon adsorbers, and by 2003 nearly all of the PCE machines 
sold would have this technology. New York and, beginning in 2007, 
California, will require this technology for all existing major and 
area sources. Due to the vast number of area sources compared to major 
sources, the majority of the new PCE machines are purchased by area 
sources to replace older technology machines. Therefore, we are 
proposing the use of dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated condensers 
and secondary carbon adsorbers for new machines at area sources to meet 
the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6).
    For co-residential area sources, the most stringent standards 
currently in place are those enforced by NYSDEC (described in section 
III.J). In some cases, these and related requirements have been 
effective in reducing exposure levels; the mean exposure has dropped by 
tenfold since 1997 (McDermott, et al., 2005). However, as described 
earlier, a monitoring study in New York City suggests that risk levels 
after implementation of these standards may remain relatively high. 
Under our first option for addressing co-residential area sources 
discussed above in section III.J of this preamble, we are not proposing 
the NYSDEC levels of control under Section 112(d)(6). However, under 
the second option for co-residential sources, we are proposing under 
CAA section 112(d)(6) standards based on those required by NYSDEC Part 
232 for new and existing co-residential sources, which would be 
modified, as appropriate, to function as nationally applicable Federal 
standards rather than State standards. While the first proposed option 
would eventually eliminate PCE exposures from co-residential sources, 
this second option would initially reduce exposures from existing co-
residential sources more than the first option to require enhanced LDAR 
for all area sources. This second option for co-residential sources 
eliminates the continued use of equipment without secondary carbon 
adsorbers at new and existing co-residential sources; this contrasts 
with the first option discussed in section J above, which prohibits the 
use of new PCE machines and may give facilities the incentive to 
prolong the use of existing machines rather than purchase newer, lower 
emitting PCE machines at existing sources. With respect to new 
facilities, this option would allow new co-residential facilities to 
use PCE only if they also use equipment with refrigerated condensers 
and secondary carbon adsorbers housed in a vapor barrier. EPA is 
seeking comment and

[[Page 75900]]

additional information in section III.J to help assess risk reductions 
that could be achieved through application of standards similar to 
NYSDEC part 232.

L. What additional changes are we making to the 1993 Dry Cleaning 
NESHAP?

    In 40 CFR 63.322(e), we are deleting the term ``diverter valve,'' 
but retaining the requirement to prevent air drawn into the door of the 
dry cleaning machine from passing through the refrigerated condenser. 
We are proposing this change because some newer machines accomplish 
this objective without a diverter valve. This change does not subject 
sources to any new requirements and does not change the requirement for 
machines with diverter valves.
    In 40 CFR 63.322(m) and 40 CFR 63.324(d), we are changing 
``perceptible leaks'' to ``leaks'' because the requirements now apply 
to both the monthly inspection for vapor leaks, which would require the 
use of a leak detection instrument, as well as the weekly or biweekly 
inspections for perceptible leaks. This harmonizing change would not 
change the nature of existing inspection requirements. To support the 
proposed requirements for monthly vapor leak inspection, we have 
proposed to add definitions of ``vapor leak,'' ``PCE gas analyzer,'' 
and ``halogenated hydrocarbon detector.''
    The 40 CFR 63.323(b) would be revised to add PCE gas analyzers as 
an acceptable monitoring instrument in addition to colorimetric tubes. 
Major sources would need a PCE gas analyzer for enhanced leak detection 
and repair. This analyzer could also be used for monitoring a carbon 
adsorber. Also, the phrase ``or removal of the activated carbon'' would 
be added to clarify that any major source required to use a carbon 
adsorber is required to monitor the adsorber exhaust weekly for PCE. 
Previously, this requirement was unclear for sources that disposed of 
the carbon instead of desorbing it.

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments

    We request comments on all aspects of the proposed amendments. We 
are also considering additional rule amendments and specifically 
solicit comments on these potential amendments. The additional 
amendments are described in the following sections. All significant 
comments received will be considered in the development and selection 
of the final amendments.

A. Additional Requirements for Highest Risk Facilities

    For one of the modeled major source facilities, the estimated 
emissions after installing controls required by the proposed rule would 
pose a MIR greater than 100-in-1 million using the CalEPA URE. An 
alternative approach we are considering is establishing more stringent 
requirements for this source. We would like information about whether 
such an approach would be appropriate and what would be a suitable 
regulatory basis for creating a separate class for this major source. 
We are considering requiring this facility to install a PCE sensor and 
lockout on each dry cleaning machine.
    Under the proposed rule, this facility would be required to install 
a refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber. Most dry 
cleaning machines with secondary carbon adsorbers sold in this country 
since 1998 are equipped with a lockout that prevents the drum from 
being opened until the completion of the timed adsorption cycle. These 
machines have been demonstrated to achieve a concentration inside the 
drum of less than 300 ppm without a PCE sensor. The addition of a 
sensor ensures that this target concentration will be met for every 
load, thereby preventing episodes of high emissions caused by operator 
error or machine malfunction.
    The PCE sensor and lockout system originally was developed to meet 
the 2. BImSchV German Emission Control Law, which requires a PCE 
concentration in the dry cleaning machine drum of less than 2 grams per 
cubic meter (~300 ppm) at the end of the drying cycle. Dry cleaning 
machines equipped with PCE sensors are widely used in Germany and are 
available in the United States. However, there is limited experience 
with this technology in the United States. We are aware of only two 
commercial dry cleaners in the United States and one industrial dry 
cleaner in Canada that use a PCE sensor. Because of the limited United 
States experience, we do not have emission test data to evaluate the 
performance of this system relative to machines with a timed lockout 
system, particularly with industrial articles such as work gloves. The 
emissions reductions that we used to evaluate the PCE sensor and 
lockout system were based on estimates of solvent mileage (pounds 
garments cleaned per gal of PCE used) compared to machines with a 
refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber. The estimated 
mileage of the various dry cleaning systems was obtained from 
engineering judgment by several industry experts. Facilities using a 
PCE sensor and lockout system could possibly observe a wide range of 
emission reduction potential. For example, facilities that use good 
maintenance procedures and follow manufacturers specifications would 
achieve lower emission reductions than facilities with poor maintenance 
procedures. This control technology ensures optimal operation of the 
carbon adsorber by preventing the door from being opened until the PCE 
concentration in the drum is less than 300 ppm at the end of the drying 
cycle. Facilities with good maintenance procedures will have fewer high 
emission episodes caused by premature termination of the drying cycle.
    We solicit comments on the appropriateness of requiring greater 
emission reduction at the highest risk source, the performance of the 
PCE sensor and lockout system and its effectiveness in reducing risks 
from this source, and the basis for creating a separate class for this 
major source dry cleaner. We also request information on the 
feasibility, cost, and amount of emission reduction that could be 
achieved at this source through other techniques, such as the use of 
alternative solvents or other approaches.

B. Requirement for PCE Sensor and Lockout as New Source MACT for Major 
Sources

    We are considering making PCE sensor and lockout controls a 
requirement for new machines installed at major sources. The decision 
to select option I instead of this control option for major sources was 
based on the relatively small emission reduction estimated to result 
from the installation of PCE sensor and lockout controls. We would like 
additional data on the amount of PCE reduction achieved by these 
controls in both industrial and commercial applications, and about how 
site-specific factors influence the reduction achieved.

C. Alternative Performance-Based Standard for Existing Major Sources

    We are considering establishing an alternative performance-based 
standard for existing major sources. The alternative standard would be 
a facility-wide PCE use limitation (e.g., gal PCE per year, solvent 
mileage or other metrics), which would be determined as a percent 
reduction of actual PCE use from a baseline year. If adopted, a source 
could elect to comply with either the proposed process vent controls 
(i.e., closed loop machine with refrigerated condenser and secondary 
carbon adsorber) or the performance-based

[[Page 75901]]

alternative. Facilities that use the performance-based alternative 
still would be required to comply with the operating controls (i.e., 
enhanced leak detection and repair, etc.) in the proposed rule.
    The alternative standard would provide more flexibility in choosing 
the method of reducing emissions. This flexibility provides the 
opportunity to decrease compliance costs, reduce recordkeeping, and 
simplify compliance and enforcement. We anticipate that any facility 
selecting this alternative would reduce emissions by replacing some 
machines with alternative solvent machines and continuing to operate 
some PCE machines without secondary controls. Additional emission 
reductions could also be achieved by more aggressive maintenance and 
leak detection programs.
    The performance-based alternative we are considering would limit 
annual PCE consumption on a facility-wide basis. Usage of PCE 
correlates directly with PCE emissions. The limit would be based on the 
average fraction of emissions reduced by the control technology 
requirement for the different types of affected sources. For the three 
major source industrial facilities that would be required to make 
equipment changes to comply with the proposed rule, the average 
estimated facility-wide emission reduction, including enhanced leak 
detection and repair, would be 76 percent. For the four affected major 
source commercial facilities, the average estimated total emission 
facility-wide reduction would be 67 percent. These reductions are 
relative to estimated emissions from these facilities in 2002. 
Therefore, we envision that facilities that clean industrial articles 
such as work gloves would be required to reduce PCE usage by at least 
76 percent. For facilities that do not clean work gloves or shop rags, 
we envision a PCE reduction of 67 percent. For a description of how the 
emission reduction percentages were estimated, refer to the Background 
Information Document in the public docket. The baseline year for 
determining the PCE usage limit would be 2002. Annual PCE usage would 
be calculated based on the amount of PCE purchased during the calendar 
year, adjusted for the PCE in use and storage at the beginning and end 
of the calendar year.
    If the performance alternative is selected, the required PCE usage 
percent reduction levels will be prescribed in the final rule. The 
percent reductions would be selected to be equivalent to the emission 
reductions achieved by the technology based MACT requirements and the 
residual risk requirements adopted in the final rule.
    The performance-based alternative would apply only to existing 
major sources. New major sources are not eligible for these 
performance-based alternative standards because no baseline PCE data 
exists for determining a required emission reduction level. This 
alternative also would not be practicable for area sources because the 
proposed rule has no process vent requirements for existing area 
sources. The only requirements for existing area sources are the ban on 
transfer machines, enhanced LDAR, and the operating requirements. 
Moreover, most area sources operate only one dry cleaning machine.
    We solicit comments on whether such an approach would be 
appropriate for major sources. We would also like comments from 
affected sources regarding the likelihood that they would select this 
alternative standard. In addition, we welcome comments on other options 
for a performance-based alternative. Please include in your comments 
how the option ensures equivalent emission reductions to the proposed 
equipment standards and how the option could be enforced, including any 
recordkeeping needed.

D. Environmental Impacts of PCE Emissions

    As discussed above, due to the large margin of exposures relative 
to known thresholds, risks to mammals from PCE inhalation are likely 
insignificant. Also, the scarcity of data makes it difficult to 
identify any potential for adverse ecological impacts to plant life 
from PCE emissions from dry cleaners due to conversion to TCAA. While 
we have no direct evidence that this will present a significant 
ecological risk, we nonetheless, invite public comment and solicit 
additional scientific information on this issue.

E. Additional Time for Complying With Provisions for Transfer Machines

    As discussed in section III.H of this preamble, we are proposing to 
eliminate the use of transfer machines. Per section 112(f) of the CAA, 
sources have 90 days to comply with health based standards. However, we 
are soliciting comment on what additional time beyond the 90-day 
compliance period, if any, might be necessary for area sources to 
replace existing transfer machines with dry-to-dry machines, and on 
whether, if EPA were to grant area sources replacing transfer machines 
additional compliance time in the final rule, any further steps should 
be taken by these area sources before achieving compliance to assure 
that the health of persons will be protected from imminent 
endangerment, consistent with section 112(f)(4)(B) of the CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive 
Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has determined 
that it considers this proposed rule a ``significant regulatory 
action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has 
submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to 
OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public 
record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1415.06 and 
OMB Control Number 2060-0234.
    The 2005 proposed revisions to the Dry Cleaning NESHAP contain 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements beyond the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements that were promulgated on September 22, 1993. 
Owners or operators will continue to keep records and submit required 
reports to us or the delegated State regulatory authority. 
Notifications,

[[Page 75902]]

reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are 
required, in general, of all sources subject to the 1993 Dry Cleaning 
NESHAP. Owners or operators subject to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP 
continue to maintain records and retain them for at least 5 years 
following the date of such measurements, reports, and records. 
Information collection requirements that were promulgated on September 
22, 1993 in the Dry Cleaning NESHAP prior to the 2005 proposed 
amendments, as well the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A), which are mandatory for all owners or operators subject to 
national emission standards, are documented in EPA ICR No. 1415.05.
    The information collection requirements described here are only 
those notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are 
contained in the 2005 proposed revisions to the Dry Cleaning NESHAP. To 
comply with the 2005 proposed revisions to the 1993 Dry Cleaning 
NESHAP, owners or operators of dry cleaning facilities would read 
instructions to determine how they would be affected. All sources would 
begin an enhanced leak detection and repair program that requires a 
handheld portable monitor. Major source facilities would purchase a PCE 
gas analyzer and area sources would purchase a halogenated hydrocarbon 
leak detector. Owners and operators would incur the capital/startup 
cost of purchasing the monitors, plus ongoing annual operation and 
maintenance costs. The total capital/startup cost for this ICR is 
$5,049,000. Annual operation and maintenance cost would be $552,825.
    Owners and operators of major and area sources would conduct 
enhanced leak detection and repair and keep monthly records of enhanced 
leak detection and repair events.
    Approximately 28,000 existing area sources and 15 existing major 
sources are subject to the proposed rule and are subject to the 1993 
Dry Cleaning NESHAP. We estimate that an average of 2,330 new area 
sources per year will become subject to the regulation in the next 3 
years, but that the overall number of facilities will remain constant 
as the new owners will take over old existing facilities. No new major 
sources are expected. The estimated annual labor cost for major and 
area sources to comply with the 2005 proposed rule is approximately 
$3.9 million.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically 
authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 
submitted to us pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is 
safeguarded according to our policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 
subpart B.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on EPA's need for this information, the accuracy of the 
provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing 
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection 
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for the proposed rule, 
which includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0155. Submit any 
comments related to the ICR for the proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See 
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of today's notice for where to 
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 
after December 21, 2005, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it by January 20, 2006. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in the proposed rule.

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 the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule 
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
based on the following Small Business Administration (SBA) size 
standards, which are based on annual sales receipts: NAICS 812310--
Coin-Operated Laundries and Dry Cleaners-$6.0 million; NAICS 812320--
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services (Except Coin-Operated)-$4.0 million; 
NAICS 812332--Industrial Launderers-$12.0 million; (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. Under these definitions, over 99 percent of 
commercial dry cleaning firms are small. For more information, refer to 
http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html. The economic impacts of the 

regulatory alternatives were analyzed based on consumption of PCE, but 
are described in terms of comparing the compliance costs to dry 
cleaning revenues at affected firms. For more detail, see the current 
Economic Impact Analysis in the public docket.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that the proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This certification is based on the economic impact of the proposed rule 
to affected small entities in the entire PCE dry cleaning source 
category and considers the economic impact associated with both 
proposed options for co-residential facilities. Over 98 percent of the 
approximately 20,000 small entities directly regulated by the proposed 
rule, including both major and area sources, are expected to have costs 
of less than 1 percent of sales. The cost impacts for all regulated 
small entities range from cost savings to less than 1.9 percent of 
sales. The small entities directly regulated by the proposed rule are 
dry cleaning businesses within the NAICS codes 812310, 812320, and 
812332. We have determined that all of the major sources affected by 
the proposed rule are owned by businesses within NAICS 812332. The 
proposed rule is expected to affect 14 ultimate parent businesses that 
would be regulated as major

[[Page 75903]]

sources. Eight of the parent businesses are small according to the SBA 
small business size standard. None of the eight firms would have an 
annualized cost of more than 1 percent of sales associated with meeting 
the requirements for major sources (option I noted earlier in this 
preamble).
    We have determined that virtually all of the affected small 
businesses that own area source dry cleaners are in NAICS 812320. Small 
businesses complying with the proposed area source requirements (area 
source option I described earlier in this preamble) are expected to 
have the following impacts. Over 98 percent of the approximately 20,000 
small entities owning area sources directly regulated by the proposed 
rule, are expected to have costs of less than 1 percent of sales. The 
one-time cost of $250 for purchasing a halogenated hydrocarbon detector 
is less than 0.10 percent of the average annual revenues for dry 
cleaning businesses in NAICS 812320, and there are minimal annualized 
costs associated with a detector's use. Of the nearly 200 small 
businesses that would have to replace their transfer machines (or 1 
percent of the total number of affected small entities), most of these 
businesses would experience an annual cost savings and the others would 
have compliance costs of less than 1.2 percent of sales. Of the 
remaining 200 affected small businesses (or 1 percent of the total 
number of affected small entities), all of which are owners of co-
residential facilities, the compliance costs based on the first 
proposed option for co-residential area sources range from 0.9 to 1.9 
percent of sales. For the second proposed option for co-residential 
area sources, there are 240 small firms that will be affected, and 
these firms will have compliance costs ranging from 0.4 to 1.9 percent 
of sales.
    Cost impacts associated with the proposed decision for major 
sources are presented in Section III.E of this preamble. These impacts 
are also presented for area sources in Section III.H, and for co-
residential sources in Section III.J. These impacts are detailed in the 
BID in the public docket as memos 5 through 7. For more information on 
the small entity economic impacts associated with the proposed 
decisions for dry cleaners affected by today's action, please refer to 
the Economic Impact and Small Business Analyses in the public docket.
    Although the proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless tried 
to reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. When 
developing the revised standards, 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 documents, will be 
publically 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 the proposed rule on small entities and welcome 
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal

[[Page 75904]]

implications.'' The proposed rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. No 
tribal governments own dry cleaning facilities subject to the proposed 
standards for dry cleaning facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to the proposed rule. 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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety risk of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, 
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. This conclusion is based on our 
assessment of the information on PCE effects on human health and 
exposures associated with dry cleaner operations.

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

    The proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined 
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.
    The proposed rule would have a negligible impact on energy 
consumption because less than 1 percent of the industry would have to 
install additional emission control equipment to comply. The cost of 
energy distribution should not be affected by the proposed rule at all 
since the standards do not affect energy distribution facilities. We 
also expect that there would be no impact on the import of foreign 
energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected to occur 
with regards to energy supplies. Further, we have concluded that the 
proposed rule is not likely to have any significant adverse energy 
effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 112(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 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.
    The proposed revisions to the 1993 NESHAP for PCE dry cleaners do 
not include requirements for technical standards beyond what the NESHAP 
requires. Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA do not apply to this 
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 9, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart M--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.320 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), 
and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.320  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) The compliance date for a new dry cleaning system depends on 
the date that construction or reconstruction commences.
    (1) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or 
reconstruction on or after December 9, 1991 and before December 21, 
2005, shall be in compliance with the provisions of this subpart except 
Sec.  63.322(o) beginning on September 22, 1993 or immediately upon 
startup, whichever is later, except for dry cleaning systems complying 
with section 112(i)(2) of the Clean Air Act; and shall be in compliance 
with the provisions of Sec.  63.322(o) beginning on [90 DAYS AFTER DATE 
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register] or immediately upon 
startup, whichever is later, except as provided by Sec.  63.6(b)(4).
    (2) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or 
reconstruction on or after December 21, 2005 and before [DATE FINAL 
RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], shall be in compliance with 
the provisions of this subpart except Sec.  63.322(o) immediately upon 
startup, and shall be in compliance with the provisions of Sec.  
63.322(o) beginning on [DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal 
Register] or immediately upon startup, whichever is later.
    (3) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or 
reconstruction on or after [DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal 
Register], shall be in compliance with provisions of this subpart, 
including Sec.  63.322(o) immediately upon startup.
    (c) Each dry cleaning system that commenced construction or 
reconstruction before December 9, 1991, and each new transfer machine 
system and its ancillary equipment that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or after December 9, 1991 and before September 22, 
1993, shall comply with Sec. Sec.  63.322(c), (d), (i), (j), (k), (l), 
and (m); 63.323(d); and 63.324(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), 
and (e) beginning on December 20, 1993, and shall comply with other 
provisions of this subpart except Sec.  63.322(o) by September 23, 
1996; and shall comply with Sec.  63.322(o) by [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE 
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register].
    (d) Each existing dry-to-dry machine and its ancillary equipment 
located in a dry cleaning facility that includes only dry-to-dry 
machines, and each existing transfer machine system and its ancillary 
equipment, and each new transfer machine system and its ancillary 
equipment installed between December 9, 1991 and September 22, 1993, as 
well as each existing dry-to-dry machine and its ancillary equipment, 
located in a dry cleaning facility that includes both transfer machine 
system(s) and dry-to-dry machine(s) is exempt from Sec. Sec.  63.322, 
63.323, and 63.324, except paragraphs 63.322(c), (d),

[[Page 75905]]

(i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (o)(1), and (o)(4); 63.323(d); and 63.324 (a), 
(b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (e) if the total 
perchloroethylene consumption of the dry cleaning facility is less than 
530 liters (140 gallons) per year. Consumption is determined according 
to Sec.  63.323(d).
    (e) Each existing transfer machine system and its ancillary 
equipment, and each new transfer machine system and its ancillary 
equipment installed between December 9, 1991 and September 22, 1993, 
located in a dry cleaning facility that includes only transfer machine 
system(s), is exempt from Sec. Sec.  63.322, 63.323, and 63.324, except 
paragraphs 63.322(c), (d), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (o)(1), and (o)(4), 
63.323(d), and 63.324 (a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (e) 
if the perchloroethylene consumption of the dry cleaning facility is 
less than 760 liters (200 gallons) per year. Consumption is determined 
according to Sec.  63.323(d).
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.321 is amended by revising the definition of  Filter, 
and adding in alphabetical order definitions for Halogenated 
hydrocarbon detector, Perchloroethylene gas analyzer, Residence, and 
Vapor leak to read as follows:


Sec.  63.321  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Filter means a porous device through which perchloroethylene is 
passed to remove contaminants in suspension. Examples include, but are 
not limited to, lint filter, button trap, cartridge filter, tubular 
filter, regenerative filter, prefilter, polishing filter, and spin disc 
filter.
    Halogenated hydrocarbon detector means a portable device capable of 
detecting vapor concentrations of perchloroethylene of 25 parts per 
million by volume and indicating a concentration of 25 parts per 
million by volume or greater by emitting an audible or visual signal 
that varies as the concentration changes.
* * * * *
    Perchloroethylene gas analyzer means a flame ionization detector, 
photoionization detector, or infrared analyzer capable of detecting 
vapor concentrations of perchloroethylene of 25 parts per million by 
volume.
* * * * *
    Residence means any dwelling or housing in which people reside 
excluding short-term housing that is occupied by the same person for a 
period of less than 180 days (such as a hotel room).
* * * * *
    Vapor leak means a perchloroethylene vapor concentration exceeding 
25 parts per million by volume (50 parts per million by volume as 
methane) as indicated by a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or 
perchloroethylene gas analyzer.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.322 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(3), (k) 
introductory text, and (m), and adding paragraph (o) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.322  Standards.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Shall prevent air drawn into the dry cleaning machine when the 
door of the machine is open from passing through the refrigerated 
condenser.
* * * * *
    (k) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system shall inspect 
the system weekly for perceptible leaks while the dry cleaning system 
is operating. Inspection with a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or 
perchloroethylene gas analyzer also fulfills the requirement for 
inspection for perceptible leaks. The following components shall be 
inspected:
* * * * *
    (m) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system shall repair all 
leaks detected under paragraph (k) or (o)(1) of this section within 24 
hours. If repair parts must be ordered, either a written or verbal 
order for those parts shall be initiated within 2 working days of 
detecting such a leak. Such repair parts shall be installed within 5 
working days after receipt.
* * * * *
    (o) Additional requirements:
    (1) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system shall inspect 
the components listed in paragraph (k) of this section for vapor leaks 
monthly while the component is in operation.
    (i) Area sources shall conduct the inspections using a halogenated 
hydrocarbon detector or perchloroethylene gas analyzer that is operated 
according to the manufacturer's instructions. The operator shall place 
the probe inlet at the surface of each component interface where 
leakage could occur and move it slowly along the interface periphery.
    (ii) Major sources shall conduct the inspections using a 
perchloroethylene gas analyzer operated according to EPA Method 21.
    (2) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system at any major 
source shall route the air-perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream contained 
within each dry cleaning machine through a refrigerated condenser and 
shall pass the air-perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream from inside the 
dry cleaning machine drum through a carbon adsorber or equivalent 
control device immediately before or as the door of the dry cleaning 
machine is opened. The carbon adsorber must be desorbed in accordance 
with manufacturer's instructions.
    (3) The owner or operator of each dry cleaning system installed 
after December 21, 2005 at an area source shall route the air-
perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream contained within each dry cleaning 
machine through a refrigerated condenser and pass the air-
perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream from inside the dry cleaning machine 
drum through a carbon adsorber or equivalent control device immediately 
before the door of the dry cleaning machine is opened. The carbon 
adsorber must be desorbed in accordance with manufacturer's 
instructions.
    (4) The owner or operator of any dry cleaning system shall 
eliminate any emission of perchloroethylene during the transfer of 
articles between the washer and the dryer(s) or reclaimer(s).
    (5) The owner or operator shall eliminate any emission of 
perchloroethylene from any dry cleaning system that is installed after 
December 21, 2005 and that is located in a building with a residence.
    5. Section 63.323 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 
introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.323  Test methods and monitoring.

* * * * *
    (b) When a carbon adsorber is used to comply with Sec.  
63.322(a)(2) or exhaust is passed through a carbon adsorber immediately 
upon machine door opening to comply with Sec.  63.322(b)(3) or Sec.  
63.323(o)(2), the owner or operator shall measure the concentration of 
perchloroethylene in the exhaust of the carbon adsorber weekly with a 
colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas analyzer. The 
measurement shall be taken while the dry cleaning machine is venting to 
that carbon adsorber at the end of the last dry cleaning cycle prior to 
desorption of that carbon adsorber or removal of the activated carbon 
to determine that the perchloroethylene concentration in the exhaust is 
equal to or less than 100 parts per million by volume. The owner or 
operator shall:
    (1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas 
analyzer designed to measure a concentration of 100 parts per million 
by volume of

[[Page 75906]]

perchloroethylene in air to an accuracy of 25 parts per 
million by volume; and
    (2) Use the colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas 
analyzer according to the manufacturer's instructions; and
* * * * *
    (c) If the air-perchloroethylene gas vapor stream is passed through 
a carbon adsorber prior to machine door opening to comply with Sec.  
63.322(b)(3) or Sec.  63.323(o)(2), the owner or operator of an 
affected facility shall measure the concentration of perchloroethylene 
in the dry cleaning machine drum at the end of the dry cleaning cycle 
weekly with a colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas 
analyzer to determine that the perchloroethylene concentration is equal 
to or less than 300 parts per million by volume. The owner or operator 
shall:
    (1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas 
analyzer designed to measure a concentration of 300 parts per million 
by volume of perchloroethylene in air to an accuracy of 75 
parts per million by volume; and
    (2) Use the colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas 
analyzer according to the manufacturer's instructions; and
    (3) Conduct the weekly monitoring by inserting the colorimetric 
detector or perchloroethylene gas analyzer tube into the open space 
above the articles at the rear of the dry cleaning machine drum 
immediately upon opening the dry cleaning machine door.
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.324 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(5), 
and (d)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.324  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) The dates when the dry cleaning system components are inspected 
for leaks, as specified in Sec.  63.322(k), (l), or (o)(1), and the 
name or location of dry cleaning system components where leaks are 
detected;
* * * * *
    (5) The date and temperature sensor monitoring results, as 
specified in Sec.  63.323 if a refrigerated condenser is used to comply 
with Sec.  63.322(a) or (b); and
    (6) The date and monitoring results, as specified in Sec.  63.323, 
if a carbon adsorber is used to comply with Sec.  63.322(a)(2), (b)(3), 
or (o)(2).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-24071 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
