

[Federal Register: July 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 144)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 42723-42746]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jy06-10]                         


[[Page 42723]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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


[[Page 42724]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155; FRL-8200-2]
RIN 2060-AK18

 
National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry 
Cleaning Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating revised standards to limit emissions of 
perchloroethylene (PCE) from existing and new dry cleaning facilities. 
On September 22, 1993, EPA promulgated technology-based emission 
standards to control emissions of PCE from dry cleaning facilities. EPA 
has reviewed these standards and is promulgating revisions to take into 
account new developments in production practices, processes, and 
control technologies. In addition, EPA has evaluated the remaining risk 
to public health and the environment following implementation of the 
technology-based rule and is promulgating more stringent standards for 
major sources in order to protect public health with an ample margin of 
safety. The final 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 and, in certain situations, disallowing the use of 
PCE at dry cleaning facilities. In addition, EPA is taking this 
opportunity to make some technical corrections to the 1993 Dry Cleaning 
NESHAP.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective July 27, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will 
be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 
(202) 566-1742.
    At this time, the EPA/DC's Public Reading Room is closed until 
further notice due to flooding. Fax numbers for Docket offices in the 
EPA/DC are temporarily unavailable. EPA visitors are required to show 
photographic identification and sign the EPA visitor log. After 
processing through the X-ray and magnetometer machines, visitors will 
be given an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times.
    Informational updates will be provided via the EPA Web site at 
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm as they are available.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final rule 
amendments, contact Mr. Warren Johnson, EPA, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural 
Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711; telephone number (919) 541-5124; fax number (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: johnson.warren@epa.gov. For questions on the residual 
risk analysis, contact Mr. Neal Fann, EPA, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air 
Benefits Cost Group (C439-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 
telephone number (919) 541-0209; fax number (919) 541-0839; e-mail 
address: fann.neal@epa.gov.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NAICS \1\   Examples of potentially
             Category                  code        regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin-operated Laundries and Dry        812310  Dry-to-dry machines
 Cleaners.                                      Transfer machines.
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services      812320  Dry-to-dry machines
 (except coin-operated).                        Transfer machines.
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 
final rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by the 
final 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 final rule to a particular 
entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Docket. The docket number for the National PCE Air Emission 
Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart M) is 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the final rule is also available on the http://WWW. 

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

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), judicial review of the final rule is available only by filing a 
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit by September 25, 2006. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), 
only an objection to the final rule that was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final action may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``if the person raising the objection can demonstrate 
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such an objection [within 
the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection 
arose after the period for

[[Page 42725]]

public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to the EPA should 
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Director of the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office 
of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What Is the Statutory Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air 
Pollutants?
    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 the Proposed Rule
    A. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Major Sources?
    B. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Area Sources?
    C. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Transfer Machines at 
Major and Area Sources?
III. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What Are the Requirements for Major Sources?
    B. What Are the Requirements for Area Sources?
    C. What Are the Requirements for Transfer Machines at Existing 
Major and Area Sources?
    D. What Are the Requirements for Co-residential Sources?
IV. Responses to Significant Comments
    A. Statutory Authority
    B. Methods Used for the Risk Assessment
    C. Compliance Dates
    D. Control Requirements for Major Sources
    E. Area Sources
    F. Co-Residential Sources
    G. Technical Corrections to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP
V. Impacts
    A. Major Sources
    B. Area Sources
    C. Co-Residential Sources
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air 
Pollutants?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to regulate hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) emitted by categories of stationary sources. For 
``major'' sources of HAP, the CAA directs us to first establish 
technology-based standards reflecting maximum achievable control 
technology (``MACT''), and to second establish residual risk standards 
if such standards are required in order to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health or prevent an adverse environmental 
effect. For non-major ``area'' sources of HAP, the CAA allows us to 
establish standards reflecting generally available control technology 
(``GACT''), in lieu of MACT and residual risk standards. The HAP we 
must regulate are listed at CAA section 112(b). The types of 
technology-based standards we must promulgate differ based on whether 
the regulated sources are ``major'' sources or ``area'' sources. Under 
CAA section 112(a)(1), major sources are those that emit or have the 
potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per 
year or more of any combination of HAP, including fugitive emissions. 
Section 112(a)(2) of the CAA provides that area sources are all other 
non-major stationary sources of HAP. For major sources, our initial 
technology-based standards must reflect maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) as set forth in CAA sections 112(d)(2)-(3). For area 
sources, we may set less stringent standards based on generally 
available control technology (GACT) under CAA section 112(d)(5). For 
both MACT and GACT, CAA section 112(h) allows us to establish design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards where we determine 
it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard.
    Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine for each 
category of major sources regulated under CAA section 112(d) whether 
the MACT standard protects public health with an ample margin of 
safety, eight years after we promulgate MACT for that source category. 
Section 112(f)(5) of the CAA provides that we are not required to 
conduct this review for categories of area sources regulated by GACT 
standards. 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, we must 
promulgate ``residual risk'' standards under CAA section 112(f) for the 
source category (or subcategory) as necessary to protect public health 
with an ample margin of safety. We must also adopt more stringent 
standards if required to prevent an ``adverse environmental effect'' as 
defined in CAA section 112(a)(7), after considering costs, energy, 
safety, and other relevant factors.
    We are also required by CAA section 112(d)(6) to periodically 
review all standards we promulgate under CAA section 112 and to revise 
them as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, 
processes and control technologies. The first such review must occur 
eight years after we promulgate MACT and GACT standards, and can be 
combined with the residual risk review performed under CAA section 
112(f)(2). The section CAA 112(d)(6) review is thereafter to be 
repeated no less frequently than every eight years.

B. What Are PCE Dry Cleaning Facilities?

    Most 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 34,000 dry 
cleaning facilities in the United States, approximately 28,000 of which 
use PCE. Of the 28,000 PCE-using dry cleaners, 12 of the facilities are 
major sources and the remainder are area sources. As defined in the 
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP, major source PCE dry cleaners are those that 
purchase more than 2,100 gallons (gal) of PCE per year (1,800 gal per 
year if the facility uses transfer machines). In the 1993 Dry Cleaning 
NESHAP, area sources were defined as either large or small, with large 
area sources defined as 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) and small area sources defined as those facilities 
using less than 140 gal per year. Some area sources are located in the 
same buildings where people live. 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.

[[Page 42726]]

    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 formal wear. 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 12 major 
sources include seven industrial facilities and five commercial 
facilities. The commercial facilities are each the central plant for a 
chain of retail storefronts. We do not expect any new PCE dry cleaning 
facilities constructed in the future to be major sources. Based on the 
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 source levels, or that any existing area sources will 
become major sources due to business growth.
    PCE 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 containing 
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 containing 
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. (For both major and area sources, the 1993 Dry 
Cleaning NESHAP prohibits new dry cleaning machines 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 effects of PCE in humans are neurological, liver, and 
kidney damage following acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) 
inhalation exposure. The results of epidemiological studies evaluating 
the relative risk of cancer associated with PCE exposure have been 
mixed; some studies reported an increased incidence of a variety of 
tumors, while other studies did not report any carcinogenic effects. 
Animal studies have reported an increased incidence of liver cancer in 
mice, via inhalation and gavage (experimentally placing the chemical in 
the stomach), and kidney and mononuclear cell leukemia in rats.
    Although PCE has not yet been reassessed under the Agency's 
recently revised Guidelines for Cancer Risk assessment, it was 
considered in one review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board to be 
intermediate between a ``probable'' and ``possible'' human carcinogen 
(Group B/C) when assessed under the previous 1986 Guidelines. Since 
that time, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has 
concluded that PCE is ``reasonably anticipated to be a human 
carcinogen,'' and the International Agency for Research on Cancer has 
concluded that PCE is ``probably carcinogenic to humans.''
    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 Integrated Risk Information 
System (IRIS) assessment, which is being revised, we used the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level 
(MRL). 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, including 
scientific and public review.
    The Agency's IRIS chemical assessment for PCE is currently being 
revised. A final IRIS determination on PCE is not expected until 2008. 
Because EPA has not yet issued a final IRIS document for PCE, to 
estimate cancer risk, we used the California EPA (CalEPA) unit risk 
estimate (URE) as well as a URE value developed by the EPA's Office of 
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics (OPPTS) in 1998. The final IRIS 
reassessment may result in a URE that is different than these two 
values. Among the available Acute Reference Levels (ARL), the one-hour 
California Reference Exposure Level (REL) was considered the most 
appropriate to use in the assessment because it may be used to 
characterize acute risk for exposure an exposure duration of one hour. 
In contrast, the ATSDR acute MRL is appropriate to characterize acute 
risk for up to 14 days of exposure.
    See the risk characterization memorandum in the public docket for 
additional information regarding the health effects of PCE.

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. Consequently, under the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP, a 
single dry cleaning facility could be comprised of multiple affected 
sources, if it has multiple dry cleaning systems onsite. As a result, 
some of a facility's systems could be subject to ``new'' source 
requirements under the NESHAP, and some could be ``existing'' sources, 
depending upon when they were placed into service.

[[Page 42727]]



                       Table 1.--Summary of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP Process Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  New \1\  (installed
               Sources                  Annual PCE  purchased        after 12/9/91)            Existing \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Sources.......................  Dry-to-dry only.........  Closed-loop, dry-to-dry  Dry-to-dry machines:
                                      > 2,100 gal/yr..........   machines with a          Must have refrigerated
                                      Transfer only...........   refrigerated             condenser.\3\
                                      >1,800 gal/yr...........   condenser, and carbon   Transfer machines: Must
                                      Dry-to-dry and Transfer.   adsorber operated        be enclosed in a room
                                      > 1,800 gal/yr..........   immediately before or    exhausting to a
                                                                 as the door is opened.   dedicated carbon
                                                                                          adsorber.
Large Area Sources..................  Dry-to-dry only 140 to    Closed-loop, dry-to-dry  Dry-to-dry machines:
                                       2,100 gal/yr.             machines with a          Must have a
                                      Transfer only 200 to       refrigerated             refrigerated condenser
                                       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.........  Same as large area       No controls required.
                                      <  140 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 the Proposed Rule

A. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Major Sources?

    Under the proposal, the requirements for all new and existing major 
sources were the same. The proposed requirements included 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 were proposed 
for all machines.
    Under the proposed enhanced LDAR program, the facility owner or 
operator would be required to use a PCE gas analyzer (photoionization 
detector, flame ionization detector, or infrared analyzer) and perform 
leak checks according to EPA Method 21 on a monthly basis. The facility 
owner or operator would also continue the weekly perceptible leak check 
according to the requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.

B. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Area Sources?

    For existing area sources (large and small), the proposed 
requirements included 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 requirements included 
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 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 proposed two options. The first 
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 proposed option, would be subject to the same 
requirements proposed for all other existing area sources (i.e., 
enhanced LDAR and elimination of transfer machines). Instead of a 
prohibition on new co-residential sources, the second option would 
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 New York 
Conservation Rules and Regulations (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.

C. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Transfer Machines at Major 
and Area Sources?

    The proposed rule included a prohibition on the use of all existing 
transfer machines 90 days after publication of the final rule by 
requiring owners or operators to eliminate any PCE emissions from 
clothing transfer between the washer and dryer. The installation of new 
transfer machines was prohibited by the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.

III. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What are the Requirements for Major Sources?

    Under the final rule revisions, the requirements for all new and 
existing major sources are the same. In addition to the previous 1993 
NESHAP requirements, the final revisions require the implementation of 
an enhanced LDAR program. Under the enhanced LDAR program, the facility 
owner or operator must use a PCE gas analyzer (photoionization 
detector, flame ionization detector, or infrared analyzer) and perform 
leak checks according to EPA Method 21 on a monthly basis. The facility 
owner or operator is also required to continue the weekly perceptible 
leak check according to the

[[Page 42728]]

requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.

B. What Are the Requirements for Area Sources?

    For existing area sources (large and small), in addition to the 
previous 1993 NESHAP requirements, the final rule revisions require 
implementation of an enhanced LDAR program and prohibit the use of 
existing transfer machines. This requirement and prohibition apply to 
all types of existing area sources, including co-residential sources 
(for the remaining time in which the latter are permitted to use PCE at 
all).
    For new area sources (large and small), the final rule revisions 
add to the previous 1993 NESHAP by requiring implementation of an 
enhanced LDAR program and use of a non-vented dry-to-dry machine with a 
refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber. These added 
requirements do not apply to new co-residential sources since these 
sources are prohibited from using PCE, as discussed later in this 
notice. The enhanced LDAR program for new and existing area sources 
requires facilities to use a halogenated leak detector (instead of a 
more costly gas analyzer for major sources) to perform leak checks on a 
monthly basis. The facility is also 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.

C. What Are the Requirements for Transfer Machines at Existing Major 
and Area Sources?

    The final rule prohibits the use of all existing transfer machines 
two years 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. The installation of new transfer machines 
was prohibited by the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. We estimate that about 
200 transfer machines remain in use within the population of 28,000 PCE 
dry cleaning sources. Most of these machines are near the end of their 
useful economic lives. The typical useful life of a dry cleaning 
machine is 10 to 15 years. By the end of 2008, the newest transfer 
machines in the industry will be 15 years old.

D. What Are the Requirements for Co-residential Sources?

    For co-residential area sources, the final rule effectively 
prohibits new PCE machines in residential buildings by requiring that 
owners or operators eliminate PCE emissions from dry cleaning systems 
that are installed after December 21, 2005. This requirement applies to 
any newly installed dry cleaning system that is located in a building 
with a residence, regardless of whether the dry cleaning system is a 
newly fabricated system or one that is relocated from another facility. 
In addition, the final rule revisions include a ``sunset date'' for the 
use of PCE at currently operating co-residential sources: All existing 
PCE machines in co-residential facilities are prohibited after December 
21, 2020. This sunset date allows owners of existing co-residential 
sources to operate their machines for their maximum estimated useful 
life, 15 years, assuming they were first installed no later than the 
date of the proposed rule. We have concluded that it is reasonable to 
establish the sunset date at that point to allow such owners to recoup 
the cost of their investment in their current machines. We also decided 
not to allow for a later sunset date since on the date of our proposal 
owners were first placed on notice that we were considering a sunset 
provision for co-residential sources. This sunset period, during which 
existing machines will be required to comply with the same revised 
requirements that apply to other existing area sources, will provide 
adequate time for source owners and operators to switch to non-PCE 
equipment or move their PCE equipment to a non-residential location. In 
the interim before the sunset date, existing co-residential sources are 
subject to the same requirements that apply to all other existing area 
sources under the final rule revisions (i.e., enhanced LDAR and 
elimination of transfer machines).

IV. Responses to Significant Comments

A. Statutory Authority

    Comment: Two commenters questioned whether we have the legal 
authority to impose risk-based standards on area sources that are 
regulated under GACT. The commenters quoted sections of the 
Congressional Record (appropriate sections were attached to the 
comments) concerning this point and provided analysis to demonstrate a 
legislative intent to exempt area sources, specifically, dry cleaners 
from residual risk standards.
    Response: While we do not concede that the commenter's 
interpretation of our authority under section 112(f) to impose risk 
based standards on area sources regulated under GACT is correct, we 
note that since we are not relying upon CAA section 112(f) as the 
authority for any of the requirements promulgated in this action for 
area sources, the commenters' arguments are moot for purposes of this 
final rulemaking.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are required to conduct a review 
and, if appropriate, revise the dry cleaning standard as necessary to 
reflect advances in practices, processes, and control technologies. At 
proposal, we evaluated the emission reductions that could be achieved 
under CAA section 112(d)(6). After assessing advances in control 
technologies and considering the public comments, we have determined 
that, given the current knowledge of the health effects of PCE, 
additional requirements we proposed under the combined authorities of 
CAA sections 112(f)(2) and (d)(6) for area sources are equally 
supportable under CAA section 112(d)(6) alone. In light of public 
comments we received regarding possible risks posed by area sources, 
and EPA's pending IRIS review of PCE, we have determined that we are 
able to address the risks posed by area sources by revising our 
standards under the authority of section 112(d)(6). The standards for 
all area sources in this final rule are promulgated under the authority 
of CAA section 112(d)(6), and fulfill the Agency's statutory 
requirements under this authority for these sources.
    The Agency's Office of Research and Development is currently re-
evaluating the available information on human health effects of PCE as 
part of a hazard and dose-response assessment for the Agency's IRIS, 
which may result in revised metrics which are different enough from 
those used in our current assessment to warrant a re-assessment of 
risks from these sources. The project schedule for completion of the 
IRIS assessment is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/index.cfm.
 Also, additional information is needed to accurately 

estimate chronic and short-term exposures and risks to individuals 
located next to area sources other than co-residential (e.g., sources 
co-located with schools and day care centers). While we received some 
information on measured PCE concentrations at such area sources in 
public comments, much of these data were collected based on complaints 
and may not be representative of PCE exposures from sources in 
compliance with the relevant regulations. EPA is aware of other data 
collected to support a peer-reviewed article; however, these data 
represent a very limited number of samples and sampling locations. As 
the results of the Agency's final PCE health assessment and additional 
scientifically peer

[[Page 42729]]

reviewed data become available, we may choose to further assess PCE 
risks and may re-evaluate our decision for area sources.

B. Methods Used for the Risk Assessment

    Comment: A commenter requested that EPA account for any uncertainty 
in the ATSDR MRL and the OPPTS provisional Reference Concentration 
(RfC) by providing a greater margin of (public) safety when selecting a 
dose-response value for PCE. Two commenters requested EPA to use the 
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) non-cancer reference 
value. Many commenters questioned the use of the CalEPA and OPPTS URE 
in the absence of the revised IRIS re-assessment number. Several 
hundred commenters, using a form letter, questioned the carcinogenicity 
of PCE and referenced a Nordic study.
    Response: The ATSDR MRL and the OPPTS provisional RfC, both based 
on 1992 occupational studies indicating effects at essentially 
identical exposure levels, are within a factor of two of each other, 
which, given the precision of the underlying data, is not a large 
difference. Additionally, a recent document by the World Health 
Organization (World Health Organization. 2006. Concise International 
Chemical Assessment Document 68.TETRACHLOROETHENE Wissenchaftliche 
Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Stuttgart, Germany, available on-line at 
http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/cicad68.pdf) included the 

derivation of a noncancer value termed a ``tolerable concentration'' 
which falls intermediate between the OPPTS provisional RfC and the 
ATSDR MRL. With regard to addressing uncertainty in the underlying 
database, both the ATSDR and OPPTS values (and the WHO value) were 
derived using similar approaches which rely on the inclusion of 
uncertainty factors to account for recognized uncertainties in the 
extrapolations from the experimental data conditions to an estimate 
appropriate to the assumed human scenario. The method employed by 
NYSDOH to derive their criterion differs from that employed by ATSDR, 
which is consistent with EPA methodology.
    As the Agency has not yet completed its own cancer assessment for 
PCE, we have evaluated PCE cancer risk based on consideration of both 
the CalEPA and OPPTS cancer dose-response assessments, as well as more 
recently available data. Data are available from the Japanese 
Industrial Safety Association (1993) for rodent cancer bioassays by 
inhalation, which were not considered in either the CalEPA or OPPTS 
assessments. These data were considered in a recent WHO document, which 
presented a range of inhalation cancer unit risk estimates derived 
using the various available data sets and default methods for 
extrapolation to humans. The highest unit risk estimate derived from 
these data was quite similar to the CalEPA estimate, while the lowest 
was about an order of magnitude lower, similar to the OPPTS URE. While 
the Nordic study did not find an association between PCE exposures of 
the study population and cancer risk, this study needs to be thoroughly 
evaluated in the context of all epidemiological studies to determine 
whether or not it will change the weight of evidence evaluation. The 
EPA IRIS reassessment will include consideration of this study as well. 
Since the last EPA assessment of PCE carcinogenicity, the United States 
Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that PCE is 
``reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen'' and the 
International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that PCE is 
``probably carcinogenic to humans.''

C. Compliance Dates

1. Two Years for Existing Sources
    Comment: Most of the comments received on compliance dates for the 
regulation were in favor of extending the date to more than 90 days. 
Some commenters asked for a one year extension, while others asked that 
the date be extended to three years. The commenters cited references in 
the CAA that stated that CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) governs the 
compliance times for CAA section 112, including residual risk 
standards, and that compliance is required as expeditiously as 
possible, but in no event later than three years from the effective 
date of the standard. The commenters added that CAA section 112(f)(4) 
merely states that EPA may not set a compliance date earlier than 90 
days. The commenters believe that the CAA section 112(f)(4)(b) 
provision for waivers of up to two years would apply only in cases 
where the rule established a compliance date of more than 90 days but 
less than two years.
    Another commenter, a State representative, recommended that the 
compliance deadline for area sources that need to purchase new machines 
should be extended to one year, because State agencies need time to 
conduct outreach. States do not have lists of area source dry cleaners 
and will need to collect this information during facility inspections.
    Response: As we have recently explained in another rulemaking, the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic 
Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule, published on June 14, 2006 (71 
FR 34422), we have since revisited our prior view regarding which CAA 
provisions govern compliance dates for residual risk rules. We hereby 
incorporate that discussion by reference. In response to the 
commenters, we are adopting different compliance deadlines for the 
existing source requirements than we proposed. We interpret CAA section 
112(i) as providing the comprehensive framework for compliance 
deadlines for all rules adopted under CAA section 112, even where the 
provisions of CAA section 112(f)(4) may appear to conflict with those 
of CAA section 112(i).
    As explained in the proposed residual risk rule for the HON source 
category, for new sources, CAA section 112(i)(1) requires that after 
the effective date of any standard under subsections (d), (f) or (h), 
no new source may be constructed or reconstructed except in compliance 
with the standard, as determined by EPA or the applicable permitting 
authority under title V of the CAA. A new source, under CAA section 
112(a)(4), is any stationary source that commences construction or 
reconstruction after EPA proposes regulations applicable to the source 
category under CAA section 112. Sections 112(e)(10) and (f)(3) of the 
CAA provide that CAA section 112(d)(6) and residual risk standards, 
respectively, become effective immediately upon promulgation. This 
means generally that a new source that is constructed after a proposed 
rule is issued must comply with the final standard, when promulgated, 
immediately upon the rule's effective date or upon startup, which ever 
occurs later.
    Sections 112(i)(7) and 112(i)(2)(A)-(B) of the CAA provide some 
exceptions to this general rule. The former provision essentially 
ensures that new sources that are built in compliance with MACT but 
before a residual risk rule is proposed will not be forced to undergo 
modifications to comply with a residual risk rule unreasonably early. 
The second set of provisions essentially treats new sources as if they 
are existing sources, where a final standard is more stringent than its 
proposed version and a source constructs after proposal but before 
final promulgation: Such sources have three years to comply with the 
final standard,

[[Page 42730]]

provided they comply with the standard as proposed in the meantime.
    For existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) allows EPA to set 
compliance deadlines of up to three years for ``any emission standard, 
limitation or regulation promulgated under this section.'' This up-to-
3-year compliance period matches the 3-year period provided under CAA 
section 112(i)(2), which potentially applies to any standard issued 
under CAA sections 112(d), (f) or (h). There is also an exception to 
the 3-year deadline for existing sources: CAA section 112(i)(3)(B) 
allows EPA or a State title V permitting authority to issue a permit 
granting an existing source an additional year to comply with standards 
under subsection (d), if it is necessary for the installation of 
controls. We believe that this reference to only subsection (d) was 
accidental on Congress's part and presents a conflict with the rest of 
the statutory scheme Congress enacted in 1990 to govern compliance 
deadlines under CAA section 112.
    In addition to adding section 112(i) in the 1990 CAA Amendments, 
the amended CAA section 112 included provisions in section 112(f) left 
over from the previous version of CAA section 112 that in several ways 
differ from those in CAA section 112(i). First, CAA section 112(f)(4) 
includes a requirement that new sources comply immediately with CAA 
section 112(f) final rules, which is redundant with CAA section 112(i). 
This provision also fails to account for the allowable exceptions to 
the immediate compliance requirement in CAA section 112(i) and fails to 
refer to the new title V implementation mechanism added in the 1990 CAA 
Amendments. In light of the overall statutory scheme regarding 
compliance deadlines for new sources reflected in CAA section 112(i), 
we believe that where those provisions conflict with the provisions of 
CAA section 112(f)(4), the most reasonable approach is to view CAA 
section 112(i) as controlling.
    In addition, for existing sources, CAA section 112(f)(4)(A) imposes 
a 90-day compliance deadline following promulgation of residual risk 
rules. Section 112(f)(4)(B) of the CAA then states that EPA, without 
reference to a title V permitting authority, may grant a waiver for up 
to two years if such period is necessary for the installation of 
controls. Both of these provisions conflict with CAA section 112(i). 
The 90-day deadline conflicts with the up-to-3-year deadline available 
for existing sources under ``any'' rule adopted under CAA section 112 
and has the result of imposing a shorter deadline on existing sources 
than may apply for new sources under CAA section 112(i)(2). The CAA 
section 112(f)(4)(B) waiver provision also fails to rely upon the new 
title V implementation mechanism, even though, of course, residual risk 
rules are required to be reflected in title V permits to the same 
extent as MACT rules to which CAA section 112(i)(3) clearly applies.
    Notwithstanding CAA section 112(i)(3)(B)'s limited reference to 
standards adopted under subsection (d), we interpret CAA section 
112(i)(3) as applying to ``any'' standards promulgated under CAA 
section 112, including those under CAA section 112(f), since CAA 
section 112(i)(3)(A) uses the term ``any'' without limitation. 
Moreover, it is clear that Congress intended the CAA section 112(i) 
provisions applicable to new sources to govern compliance under CAA 
section 112(f) standards, notwithstanding the language of CAA section 
112(f)(4), based on their explicit reference to such standards. Reading 
CAA section 112(i)(3)(B) as reaching only subsection (d) standards, 
conversely, with CAA section 112(f)(4)(B) governing subsection (f) 
standards, would leave unanswered the question of which provision 
applies to subsection (h) standards, which may also require the 
installation of controls. A narrow reading of the scope of CAA section 
112(i)(3) would also ignore the fact that in many cases, including this 
rule, the enabling authority will be both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 
112(d)(6). We conclude that the only reasonable way to avoid a conflict 
in the provisions addressing compliance deadlines for existing sources 
in these situations is to read the more specific and comprehensive set 
of provisions in CAA section 112(i) as govern both the CAA section 
112(d) and CAA section 112(f) aspects of the regulation.
    In our proposed rule, we asked for comments on the issue of whether 
a 90-day compliance deadline was sufficient for our proposed 
elimination of transfer machines. In response to this, and in response 
to our proposed deadlines for other requirements for existing sources, 
we received significant comments on this compliance deadline issue 
generally. Therefore, we believe that our approach promulgated in this 
action is a logical outgrowth of our proposed rule. In anticipation of 
an objection claiming that our resolution of the conflict between CAA 
sections 112(i) and 112(f)(4) was not adequately noticed in our 
proposal, we note that the same 2-year compliance deadline we are 
adopting for existing sources in the final rule is also fully supported 
under an alternative interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(4)(A)-(B) 
controls. This is because CAA section 112(f)(4) would allow us to grant 
a 2-year extension of the compliance deadline for existing sources, on 
top of the 90-day compliance deadline otherwise required. Since we find 
that the 2-year total compliance deadline is necessary for the 
installation of controls at existing dry cleaners that would have to 
replace transfer machines with equipment compliant with new source 
standards (as further discussed below), and as the total 2-year 
compliance deadline falls within the 2-year plus 90-day period that 
would be allowed under CAA section 112(f)(4)(A)-(B), the final rule 
deadline is within the permissible range of CAA section 112(f)(4), if 
it applies. In addition, since we explicitly asked for comment on the 
90-day deadline proposed under CAA section 112(f)(4) for eliminating 
transfer machines and received substantial comments on this issue and 
on the compliance deadline issue in general, our final decision, to the 
extent it must rely on the authority of CAA section 112(f)(4), is also 
a logical outgrowth of our proposal.
    We agree with the commenters that existing sources will need more 
than 90 days to fully implement the requirements of the rule. Existing 
area sources will require up to two years to comply with the revised 
standards. Approximately 200 facilities will need to replace their 
transfer machines with dry-to-dry machines. These facilities generally 
are small proprietorships that will need a sufficient amount of time to 
save the money to purchase new machines. Also, due to the large number 
of area sources in the U.S., time is needed for outreach to inform 
these facilities about the rule changes. Moreover, there could be a 
supply shortage if 28,000 area sources were required to obtain a leak 
detection instruments within 90 days of promulgation. Similarly, major 
sources will need additional time to obtain leak detection equipment 
and fully implement enhanced LDAR requirements.
2. Clarification of New Source Requirements
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether the 
proposed revisions for new sources apply to those constructed after the 
proposal date of the original NESHAP or of the date of the current 
proposal.
    Response: The revised requirements for new sources apply only to 
new dry cleaning machines that are constructed or reconstructed after 
December 21,

[[Page 42731]]

2005. Under the general provisions, a new source is any affected source 
that commences construction or reconstruction after the date that a 
relevant emission standard is proposed in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, new dry cleaning machines build after the proposal date of 
the original rule but before December 21, 2005, are subject to the new 
source requirements of the original rule, and to any additional 
requirements of the revised rule that would apply to existing sources. 
New machines built after December 21, 2005, are subject to the 
requirements of the rule as revised upon the effective date of the 
final rule or upon their startup, whichever occurs later.

D. Control Requirements for Major Sources

    Comment: Most comments received about the requirements for major 
sources supported EPA's proposed requirements of non-venting machines 
with refrigerated condenser, secondary carbon adsorber, and an enhanced 
LDAR program. Most major sources were estimated to incur an annual cost 
savings by implementing these requirements. We received a few comments 
that asked us to require more stringent requirements. These commenters 
asked us to require all major sources to upgrade their machines with a 
PCE analyzer and lockout and another asked to ban new PCE machines at 
major sources, require PCE sensor and lockout equipment for existing 
machines, and adopt an equipment standard that prohibits the use of PCE 
machines more than 15 years old. One commenter, a major source stated 
that they would face substantial negative economic impacts if required 
to replace their existing equipment with closed-loop systems with 
refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as proposed.
    Response: Since proposal, 3 major source facilities, including the 
proposal MIR facility, have been removed from our risk analysis, which 
has affected our risk estimates for existing major sources. The MIR 
facility ceased operation due to a change in ownership to a company 
that does not use PCE in the cleaning process. One additional facility 
ceased operation, and another was determined to have been an area 
source prior to the compliance date for the original NESHAP, and is 
therefore not subject to major source requirements. The resulting 
cancer risks at baseline for the remaining facilities range between 50 
and 400 in-1-million.
    In assessing the appropriate level of control to address these 
risks, we revisited the proposal level of control, which included 
enhanced LDAR, along with the requirements to use dry-to-dry machines 
that do not vent to the atmosphere (closed loop) during any phase of 
the dry cleaning cycle, and to have refrigerated condensers and 
secondary carbon adsorbers to control the PCE emissions during the 
final stage of the dry cleaning cycle immediately before and as the 
drum door is opened. Enhanced LDAR alone, which will require owners and 
operators to use a PCE gas analyzer and perform leak checks according 
to EPA Method 21 on a monthly basis (as well as continue weekly 
perceptible leak checks), is expected to reduce MIR from existing major 
sources to between 20 and 200 in-a-million. We have determined that 
this range of MIR levels is acceptable within the meaning of the 
Benzene NESHAP decision framework. In arriving at this determination we 
considered the MIR levels and other factors in making our determination 
of acceptability, as directed by the 1989 Benzene NESHAP. Nearly all of 
the population living within 10 km of each remaining major source 
facility is estimated to be exposed at risk levels of less than 1-in-1 
million at this level of control. Considering the very small number of 
individuals that are estimated to be exposed at risk levels 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 to PCE 
emissions from major sources causing cancer risk levels above 100-in-1 
million. Among the exposed population of 9 million individuals, a 
maximum of 2 people are estimated to be exposed at risk levels of more 
than 100-in-1 million. In addition, no significant non-cancer health 
effects are predicted. The maximum HQ would be reduced from 0.3 to 
0.06, and no adverse ecological impacts are predicted from exposure to 
emissions at this level of control. 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 enhanced LDAR at existing 
major sources are acceptable after considering MIR, the population 
exposed at different risk levels, and the projected decline in PCE 
usage. While not relevant in the analysis of acceptable level of risks, 
the costs for this option include a capital cost of approximately 
$30,000, and an annual cost savings of approximately $250,000.
    In the second step of the residual risk process, we determined 
whether a standard more stringent than enhanced LDAR is warranted to 
protect public health with an ample margin of safety. 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. The requirements to use closed 
loop dry-to-dry machines and for machines to be controlled with 
refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as proposed would further 
reduce MIR to between 10 and 100 in-a-million. However, the additional 
costs and associated impacts from application of these controls at 
existing major sources do not warrant the level of incremental risk 
reductions this option would achieve, especially when considering the 
distribution of costs, emissions and risk reductions among the affected 
facilities. For example, of the seven existing facilities with major 
sources that would be impacted by this additional level of control, the 
bulk of the costs are incurred by one facility, and would result in 
minimal risk reductions from the facility. This facility would incur 
costs of approximately $2 million to replace equipment which could not 
be retrofitted to meet this level of control. Annual costs for this 
facility would be approximately $200,000. The risk range associated 
with this facility upon implementation of enhanced LDAR is estimated to 
be between 5 and 50 in-1 million. The risk range with the additional 
level of controls of closed loop dry-to-dry machines and refrigerated 
condenser and carbon adsorber would be between 2 and 20-in-1 million. 
While two of the remaining six facilities would achieve somewhat higher 
risk reductions that would be realized from the example facility, the 
remaining four are expected to only achieve minimal risk reductions, as 
represented by the range of incremental emissions reductions from the 
added layer of control (between 0 and 4 tons per year). The capital 
costs to achieve these emissions and risk

[[Page 42732]]

reductions would be $2.3 million, with annual costs of $53,000. 
Consequently, we have determined that the risks associated with 
enhanced LDAR at existing major sources represent an ample margin of 
safety after considering costs, remaining risks and population cancer 
risk.
    As proposed, new major sources would be required to perform 
enhanced LDAR in addition to the 1993 NESHAP requirement of closed-
loop, dry-to-dry systems with refrigerated condensers and carbon 
adsorbers. As explained in the proposal, we do not expect that any new 
major sources will be built, or that any existing area sources will 
increase PCE usage to major source levels. However, if this situation 
occurs, the additional LDAR requirements will continue to reduce 
emissions from equipment leaks. The risks posed by major sources do not 
warrant further control given the costs and the relatively low levels 
of emission and risk reduction that would be achieved by these 
additional controls. The available data indicated that closed-loop 
systems with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers, as well as 
PCE analyzer and lockout costs were unreasonably high considering the 
range of impacts across facilities. Consequently, we determined that 
requiring these additional controls was not a reasonable or 
economically feasible option for all major sources. The costs to 
eliminate PCE usage at major sources would require a capital cost to 
the industry of approximately $8.2 million. This estimate was based on 
the total costs of replacing all PCE machines with machines using 
hydrocarbon solvent, the most common and lowest cost alternative in 
large-scale operations.
1. Risks From Major Sources
    Comment: One commenter stated that the risk assessment is biased 
and does not represent all sources. Data regarding the performance of 
pollution control equipment used at each facility is critical. The 
commenter stated that the control technology at their facility is 
unlike that at any other facility. They believe the risk assessment for 
the group of major sources is invalid because it depended heavily on 
the risk of one outlier facility, ALAC, which recently closed. 
Therefore, they contend ALAC greatly increased the MIR for all major 
sources.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the risk assessment 
is biased and is driven by the results of the assessment for a single 
facility. While we did use this facility's MIR at the time of proposal, 
we assessed risks using data from major source facilities that we 
concluded were representative of all major sources. Our final 
regulatory decision is based on a revised MIR for major sources, which 
ranges between 50-in-1 million and 400-in-1 million, after excluding 
data from sources that have ceased operation, such as the ALAC 
facility. This revised MIR supports our decision for major source under 
both sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
    For the risk assessment, major sources were subdivided into three 
cleaning specializations-commercial, industrial and leather. EPA 
collected site-specific information from 10 of the 15 facilities (9 
surveys and 1 site visit) to develop a cross-section of the three 
specializations within the source category. Facilities within each 
specialization tend to be homogenous with respect to factors that 
affect the emissions, pollutant dispersion, and population size in the 
modeling radius, allowing EPA to extrapolate risks from the facilities 
it modeled to those it did not.
    The information EPA collected included:
     Source locations and emission points,
     Building dimensions,
     PCE consumption,
     Annual disposal of PCE in sludge or residual waste (still 
bottoms),
     Annual facility operating hours, and
     Locations of sensitive receptors, including neighboring 
houses.
    Based on these survey and site-visit data, we estimated annual and 
hourly emissions by performing a mass balance calculation on PCE 
concentrations. Using this mass balance data, we then estimated annual 
average emission rates. Finally, we estimated maximum one-hour 
emissions by dividing the total emissions level by the total number of 
operational hours at that facility and then accounting for hourly 
variation in these emissions.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should have informed the 
public that two major sources recently ceased operations.
    Response: The largest major source ceased operations in June 2005. 
One other source ceased dry cleaning operations and another source was 
determined to have been an area source. By the time we learned of the 
closures, the proposed rule package was at the later stages of senior-
level Agency review. Since proposal, we re-evaluated the risk 
assessment without these sources. The baseline estimate for MIR 
eliminating the sources that ceased operation ranges between 50 in-one-
million to 400 in-one-million. The MIR at the level of control 
promulgated in this final rule is between 20 in-one-million and about 
200 in-one-million.
2. Site Specific Risk Assessment
    Comment: Two commenters supported the concept of incorporating a 
site-specific risk assessment (SSRA) for both major and area sources. 
The commenters believe that substantial flexibility is needed to 
improve the cost-effectiveness of the rules and to avoid potentially 
adverse impacts on specific sources. They believe that EPA has 
published adequate guidance on conducting an SSRA. The commenters 
believe that the SSRA should be used both to demonstrate equivalence to 
specific emission reduction requirements and to determine applicability 
to the residual risk requirements. The commenters believe that the CAA 
allows EPA to focus the applicability of the residual risk requirements 
only on those sources whose remaining risks after application of MACT 
do not provide an ample margin of safety (citing Senate Report language 
to support their case).
    Response: We have decided not to adopt an SSRA option for major or 
area sources as part of this action. As a result of the revised risk 
analysis for major source given the elimination of 3 sources from the 
analysis, including the MIR facility, baseline risks from major sources 
are much lower than estimated for proposal, and the associated risk 
reduction measures are less stringent than originally proposed. Major 
sources are required to perform enhanced LDAR, which is expected to 
reduce MIR from between 50 and 400 in a million, to between 20 and 200 
in a million, which the Agency has determined meets ample margin of 
safety considering cost, population cancer risk at different control 
levels and other factors. Furthermore, an annual cost savings of about 
$250,000 is estimated for major sources from implementing enhanced 
LDAR. Similarly, an annual cost savings of about $2.7 million is 
estimated for area sources from implementing enhanced LDAR programs and 
eliminating existing transfer machines. We believe these requirements 
will be cost-effective. Therefore, we have determined that an option 
for major or area sources to perform an SSRA is not necessary.
    For co-residential sources, we are promulgating a ban on new 
sources and a sunset date for existing sources. An option for co-
residential sources to perform an SSRA to determine low risk and avoid 
these requirements is not feasible as part of this action. There is no 
established protocol for self assessment for co-residential sources

[[Page 42733]]

which would account for exposures inside of co-located apartments. 
Traditional methods of dispersion modeling of emissions would not 
accurately assess risks in this exposure scenario, as no modeling 
methodology exists that could determine dispersion patterns throughout 
buildings. Also, there may be practical difficulties for these small 
businesses to pay for, perform or obtain monitored samples of PCE 
concentrations in private residences, to be used as part of an SSRA in 
the absence of a modeling methodology. Therefore, an option for an SSRA 
is not included in this action.
3. PCE Analyzer and Lockout
    Comment: Six commenters recommended that EPA require major sources 
to install a PCE sensor and lockout to further reduce health risk. 
Among the six commenters, two commenters suggested that if EPA receives 
additional information they should revisit the cost-effectiveness 
analysis. Another commenter stated that 40 tons per year of PCE removed 
by this control option at cost of $17,000 per ton would be worthwhile. 
One commenter stated that the sensor and lockout will help to reduce 
the PCE emissions from operator error, which is, along with poorly 
maintained older machines, the cause of the majority of emissions.
    One commenter, a vendor of dry cleaning machines, advised EPA to be 
cautious regarding the use PCE analyzers inside the drum because of 
their high sensitivity to humidity, heat, and vibration which 
necessitates frequent recalibration. Another commenter, a major source, 
noted that a lockout system would increase cycle times significantly 
thereby increasing operating costs.
    Response: Based on the revised risk assessment for major sources 
post proposal and the resulting cancer and non-cancer risk estimates, 
we have determined that the requirement for enhanced LDAR in addition 
to the existing requirements in the 1993 NESHAP are sufficient to 
protect public health with an ample margin of safety. We considered a 
variety of other factors in making our determination, as directed by 
the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (described above). Consequently, we believe 
that the additional costs of further controls are not warranted.
    We agree with the commenter about the effect of operator error on 
emissions. Because our estimated emission reductions are based on 
subjective estimates by industry experts of typical performance over 
time, variations in operations have been taken into account in the 
emissions estimate. We also agree with the comment about the potential 
for unreliable readings from improperly calibrated PCE analyzers. While 
PCE analyzers are sometimes employed as PCE sensors, PCE analyzers are 
typically more advanced than sensors, as the analyzers typically employ 
technologies such as single-beam infrared photometers, and tend to be 
more sensitive instruments than those used as sensors. We did not take 
into account any additional costs associated with performing periodic 
calibration tests. As a result, the cost of the technology may be more 
than what we estimated. Due to the interlock, a high reading from a PCE 
analyzer can unnecessarily prevent the completion of a load. In a high-
throughput operation, such increases in cycle time can impose a 
considerable decrease in production.
4. Economic Analysis
    Comment: One major source commenter stated that financial impacts 
for his facility are much higher than what EPA estimated. The commenter 
contends that the Economic Impact Analysis is based on underestimated 
costs and revenue that is more than double the company's actual 
revenue. The commenter also contends that his company's machines cannot 
be retrofitted with a refrigerated condenser and would need to be 
replaced, that the cost to replace the machines has been estimated by 
EPA to be $1.9 million, that substantial lost revenue while machines 
are under construction was not considered, and that estimated financing 
and permitting costs were also not considered. This commenter 
strenuously disagreed with the conclusion of the Economic Impact 
Analysis that no negative impact would be incurred by major sources, 
and contends that EPA used incorrect revenue estimates. According to 
this commenter, the requirements of the proposed rule, if implemented 
within 90 days of promulgation, would result in the closure of this 
facility and the loss of 120 jobs in economically desolate Detroit, 
Michigan.
    Response: Our economic analysis of the impacts associated with the 
proposed level of control for major sources from implementing the rule 
is based on comparing the estimated annualized compliance costs to the 
estimated revenues for the parent firm. The estimate for the rule is 
annualized compliance costs of 0.4 percent of the firm's sales (or cost 
per sales hereafter). This estimate is contingent on the accuracy of 
the compliance costs and the revenue estimate for the firm. Our revenue 
estimate is from 2002 fiscal year data collected for the firm. We 
collected this data for 2002 to be consistent with the year for which 
the costs are estimated. This is consistent with how EPA has estimated 
economic impacts in a variety of recent rulemakings for residual risk 
and other standards. Thus, the comment that the revenue estimate is 
incorrect is not accurate. If we were to recalculate the compliance 
costs for this facility assuming that all of their machines would need 
to be replaced, then the cost per sales will be 1.65 percent given the 
annualized costs of about $240,000 for the rule.
    We have also adopted a 2-year compliance schedule in the final 
rule. This compliance schedule should provide adequate time for this 
facility fully implement requirements for enhanced LDAR.
    We have not concluded that there is no negative economic impact on 
major sources resulting from the final rule. Rather, we have stated 
that there is not a significant economic impact to a substantial number 
of small entities (or SISNOSE). The commenter's facility is not a small 
business according to the SBA definition. While estimated cost savings 
are expected for a number of firms that are major dry cleaning sources, 
some firms are likely to experience some negative economic impacts. The 
Agency does not believe that such impacts are likely to be unreasonable 
for the affected major source-owning firms, however. This statement is 
based on our impact estimates that most of the affected major source-
owning firms have annualized compliance cost to sales of less than 1 
percent. These estimates can be found in the economic impact analysis 
for this final rule.
5. Performance-Based Standard for Existing Major Sources
    Comment: One commenter supported incorporating a performance-based 
standard for major sources in the final rule. They believe a 
performance-based standard provides an incentive for sources to convert 
to safer alternatives for some or all of the articles handled by a 
source. Other commenters supported the alternative compliance option 
(facility-wide PCE usage or other metrics) for existing major sources 
to provide the maximum compliance flexibility possible.
    Response: We appreciate the supportive comments regarding this 
concept, however a performance-based option has not been incorporated 
in the rule in part because we did not receive any indication from any 
of the major sources to which this option would have applied that they 
would have

[[Page 42734]]

found it useful. None of the major sources responded with comments 
supporting the need for a performance-based option, which suggests to 
us that their preferred compliance option would be to meet the required 
standards. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to further pursue a 
performance-based option for this specific industry.

E. Area Sources

    Most comments received about the requirements for typical area 
sources supported EPA's proposed requirements of banning transfer 
machines, requiring existing facilities to implement an enhanced LDAR 
program, and requiring new sources to install a closed-loop dry-to-dry 
machine with refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber. A few 
commenters opposed the ban on transfer machines based on the cost of 
the machine replacement. We received a few comments requesting more 
stringent requirements. These commenters asked EPA to require all 
typical area sources to upgrade their machines with a secondary carbon 
adsorber.
    Based on our review of the advances in technology since the 1993 
rule, we have determined that adopting the rule revisions for area 
sources as proposed satisfies the requirements of CAA section 
112(d)(6). The preponderance of comments supported the proposed rule, 
and we received very few negative comments. Existing sources were 
estimated to incur a cost savings 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 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. Therefore, consistent with our 
analysis at proposal, we are not requiring a secondary carbon adsorber 
on existing area sources because the emission and risk reduction would 
be relatively minor and the costs would impose unnecessary adverse 
economic impacts on a number of small businesses.
1. LDAR Program
    Comment: One commenter believes the proposed LDAR requirements are 
not necessary, explaining that most States now require the PCE dry 
cleaners to inspect their equipment on a regular basis and State 
inspectors make periodic inspections.
    Response: EPA disagrees. Most States do not have requirements 
beyond the 1993 NESHAP and do not inspect dry cleaners more than once 
every few years. Sensory methods are ineffective in identifying leaks 
early. Substantial PCE emissions occur between the point when failure 
begins and the leak can be detected by sensory methods. An instrument 
will enable earlier detection.
    Comment: One commenter, a vendor of dry cleaning equipment, 
disagreed with the EPA's conclusion that leaks are the largest source 
of emissions. Leak inspections are a waste of time because serious 
leaks are repaired immediately without need for an inspection. More 
significant sources of emissions are:
    1. Unloading incompletely-dried garments.
    2. Routine maintenance.
    3. Cleaning distillation units.
    4. Receipt of new PCE.
    Response: Our analysis has shown that the filling of PCE tanks is 
not a significant source of emissions. We agree that the first three 
sources named can be significant if dry cleaning systems are not 
operated properly. Under the General Provisions of 40 CFR 63, all 
regulated sources have a general duty to operate systems and control 
devices according to good air pollution control practices for 
minimizing emissions. This requirement includes following 
manufacturer's specifications for operation and maintenance of the 
system. We have concluded that it is not necessary at this time to 
specify in the rule additional operating and maintenance procedures. 
Leaks, however, are an important source of emissions, and controlling 
them is an integral part of an effective pollution prevention program. 
Leaks can be detected and controlled at a reasonable cost using an 
enhanced LDAR program. In a study by the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District, over half of the dry cleaning machines tested had 
leaky gaskets, which are replaceable parts that can cause significant 
PCE emissions. The enhanced LDAR program requirement is expected to 
result in earlier leak detection from these types of emission points, 
and is the best method to determine when gaskets need replacing and 
when they do not.
2. Banning PCE
    Comment: Two commenters, a state agency and a manufacturer of PCE 
alternative solvent dry cleaning machines, stated that EPA failed to 
adequately assess the feasibility of alternative solvents because the 
negative impacts of alternative solvent technologies were not 
sufficiently considered. Any action that would result in the ban of PCE 
at some or all facilities requires the use of an alternative solvent.
    Response: We concur with the commenter that each of the alternative 
solvents that are currently available have certain trade-offs or 
limitations relative to PCE. Depending on the system, these limitations 
may involve cost, cleaning ability, ease of use, applicability to 
certain fabrics, safety, or others. No single alternative offers all of 
the business advantages of PCE. Given these factors and the current 
degree of use of alternative solvents in the industry, we did not 
consider it appropriate to mandate the use of alternative solvents as 
part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) review, except in the context of co-
residential area source settings as discussed below. For area sources, 
the 1993 NESHAP was based on the use of GACT. In our review of this 
standard under CAA section 112(d)(6), we considered PCE emission 
controls that are in widespread use by the industry. We concluded that, 
based on the current information before the agency, we are not prepared 
to require a ban of PCE at typical area sources (i.e., area sources 
other than co-residential) under CAA section 112(d)(6). However, we 
interpret CAA section 112(d)(6) as allowing us to consider a broad 
range of factors in determining what changes to standards are 
``necessary,'' after taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies. This interpretation is consistent 
with those regarding other provisions of the CAA that direct us to find 
the ``best balance'' of emissions control, costs of control, safety, 
and other factors. Such factors may include whether sources' emissions 
present different degrees of risk. Due to the potential for high risks 
posed by co-residential area source dry cleaners, and in light of the 
availability of non-PCE dry cleaning technologies in the market, we 
determined that it is necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6) to treat 
this component of the area source sector differently than we are 
treating other area sources dry cleaners, whose emissions present 
significantly smaller risks.
3. Transfer Machines and Vented Machines
    Comment: One industry association opposed the ban on transfer 
machines because such a ban would result in a significant economic 
impact to these

[[Page 42735]]

economically marginal businesses. To require the replacement of 
transfer machines in 90 days would result in the closure of each of 
these small plants.
    Response: The economic impact analysis shows that there is an 
economic impact on owners of transfer machines from a ban on their 
operation, but not a significant one. The results of the analysis show 
impacts of compliance costs of just under two percent of sales. Given 
that these transfer machines are all at least 13 years old due to the 
ban on new transfer machines applied under the dry cleaning NESHAP, 
these machines are very likely close to or beyond their expected 
equipment life of 15 years. Thus, owners of these machines are likely 
to consider replacing them in the near future in any event without any 
additional regulatory driver.
    Comment: Two dry cleaners owning transfer machines stated that 
transfer machines should not be prohibited because such a requirement 
would force them to close because they cannot afford a new machine. One 
of these commenters stated he used the same amount of PCE as dry 
cleaners using third generation machines. The other commenter requested 
that EPA phase out transfer machines over 10 to 15 years and that EPA 
examine each dry cleaner operating a transfer machine individually.
    Response: EPA's cost and economic impact analyses for this rule 
shows that firms owning transfer machines will have to pay $35,600 to 
purchase a new dry cleaning machine with secondary controls 
(refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber). The annualized compliance 
costs are estimated at just over one percent of the sales for an 
average dry cleaning firm. We believe these impacts are not significant 
overall, but we recognize that individual firms, especially small 
firms, may experience greater impacts than the average. To provide an 
adequate opportunity to raise capital and in response to comments, we 
are promulgating a compliance period of two years, rather than the 90 
days that would have been allowed under the proposal.
    Comment: Two State representatives, a vendor of dry cleaning 
equipment, and an environmental group recommended that EPA prohibit the 
use of vented machines because their emissions are considerably greater 
than closed-loop machines. One commenter added that, if a carbon 
adsorber for a vented machine does not get frequent maintenance, its 
emissions increase considerably. The two State representatives said 
that their states have already banned vented machines without 
encountering appreciable resistance from the dry cleaning industry. One 
commenter noted that according to EPA's cost estimates, dry cleaners 
replacing a vented machine with a fourth generation machine would 
reduce their net cost because of reduced usage of PCE. This commenter 
added that vented machines are at the end of their useful life.
    Response: The final rule will not prohibit the use of vented 
machines. We have reviewed developments in processes and control 
technology and determined that an LDAR program will be required on a 
monthly basis with a leak detection instrument. These requirements 
satisfy the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6). We did not find any 
control technologies that could be retrofitted at a reasonable cost on 
these machines. We concluded that forced replacement of these machines 
at typical area sources is not warranted given the costs and the 
relatively low levels of emission and risk reduction that would be 
achieved.
4. Co-Commercial Sources
    Comment: One commenter, a State representative, strongly disagreed 
with the statement in the proposed rule indicating that the existing 
NESHAP level of control would result in an acceptable level of risk for 
area sources for co-commercial sources. The commenter presented a 
summary of results from complaint-based sampling of facilities in strip 
malls that demonstrate where PCE concentrations ranged from 8 to 50,400 
micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), including a day care 
facility with a mean concentration of 2,100 ug/m3. Also, PCE 
concentrations during the first hour of operation are roughly four 
times the average because vapor accumulates in the drum of the machine 
overnight.
    Response: While these measured concentration results are high 
(relative to what we would expect from the type of dry cleaning 
equipment likely to be in use at co-commercial sources), the fact that 
they were measured as the result of complaints may indicate that the 
reason behind the elevated levels may be lack of compliance with the 
1993 NESHAP. This being the case, we cannot confidently conclude that 
these data as represent exposure levels that reflect compliance with 
the NESHAP. Therefore, we are choosing to not use them to evaluate the 
success or failure of the NESHAP level of control. In the future, 
studies of PCE exposures should be conducted to include a 
representative sampling of facilities and indicate the actual level of 
control being utilized and achieved by each facility in question.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended additional controls should 
be required at co-commercial sources. A State representative 
recommended the following requirements for co-commercial sources:
    1. Secondary carbon,
    2. Vapor barriers,
    3. Weekly leak inspections,
    4. Annual third party inspections, and
    5. Operator certification by an approved training program.
    Without these measures, the revised NESHAP cannot achieve 
reductions in PCE levels comparable to those achieved by NYCRR Part 
232.
    Response: Additional information is needed to accurately estimate 
exposures and risks to individuals located next to co-commercial 
sources (including, for example, sources co-located with schools and 
day care centers). Without valid information that co-commercial sources 
pose greater risks than typical area sources, we are not prepared to 
determine that the cost of additional controls for co-commercial 
sources is justified under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    In their remarks, some commenters quoted relatively high exposure 
concentrations that are attributed to co-commercial sources. However, 
only one study was referenced with the comments. This study has not 
been peer reviewed and has not had the opportunity for public comment. 
The study was completed on one co-commercial facility and without 
documentation of the study, we cannot analyze the methods of data 
collection, the type of facilities sampled, the dry cleaning systems 
used, or the conditions under which the data were collected. 
Accordingly, we do not know if these reported measurements are valid 
or, if so, whether these exposures are representative of all co-
commercial facilities or only particular configurations. In absence of 
these data, we have no technical basis for requiring additional control 
on these facilities. Until more research is available on PCE exposures 
at co-commercial sources, we have determined to subject co-commercial 
sources to the same control requirements as typical area sources that 
are not collocated in the same buildings with residences.
5. Economic Impacts
    Comment: Two trade associations stated that EPA has significantly 
underestimated median revenue of dry cleaners. According to the 2002 
Economic Census, 87 percent of all dry cleaning establishments had less 
revenue than the median revenue used by EPA. Further, one third of all 
dry cleaners are so small that they have no

[[Page 42736]]

payment to report and are not reflected in census data.
    Response: EPA's economic analysis of the impacts to affected dry 
cleaners is based on comparing the estimated annualized compliance 
costs to the estimated revenues for the parent firm. This estimate is 
contingent on the accuracy of the compliance costs and the revenue 
estimate for the firm. The Agency chose to use the industry revenue 
average for 1997 instead of the data from the 2002 Census because it 
was readily available to the model EPA chose to employ for generating 
the economic impact results at the time of the analysis. The value used 
by EPA from the Census reflects the average revenue per firm and 
applying this value is consistent with revenue estimates used in 
economic impact analyses that accompanied recent agency rulemakings. 
This approach is consistent with how EPA has estimated economic impacts 
in a variety of recent rulemakings for residual risk and other 
standards. A review of average revenue for firms in the dry cleaning 
industry from the 2002 Economic Census showed that this average revenue 
was 10 percent higher than the value from the 1997 Economic Census. 
Hence, our economic impact estimates will be lower using average 
revenues per firm from the 2002 Census as compared to the revenues used 
in the current economic impact analysis.
    The commenter's point about the lack of revenue data from many dry 
cleaners that do not report payroll is a useful point. Having such a 
lack of data means some caution in applying Census revenue data for 
these firms is appropriate. However, collecting revenue data from these 
firms or estimating their revenues by some other means is highly 
problematic and impossible to incorporate in the current economic 
impact analysis. The commenter's assertions of the ``over saturation of 
the industry with too many plants'' and that many ``plants'' are having 
difficulty paying bills are ones for which no data is provided. The 
Agency's current estimate of the number of dry cleaning facilities is 
about 34,000. This estimate is extremely close to the estimate of 
33,863 provided by the Agency in its ``Dry Cleaning Sector Notebook 
Project'' report published in September 1995, which was before full 
implementation of the dry cleaning NESHAP took place. In addition, low 
profit margins are typical for dry cleaning operations; the ``Dry 
Cleaning Sector Notebooks Project'' published by the Agency over 10 
years ago mentions that ``Commercial dry cleaning is not a high profit 
business, and many dry cleaners are barely able to stay in business.'' 
The fact that the number of facilities in this industry are about the 
same over a ten year periods leads to skepticism as to whether the 
industry was oversaturated at the current time and whether firms in the 
industry are having more difficulty staying in business now than in the 
past.

F. Co-Residential Sources

    Comment: We received several hundred comments on the two proposed 
options for co-residential sources. Comments from the industry and one 
mass-mailing campaign supported the technology-based option for co-
residential sources similar to the technology requirements of New 
York's Part 232 regulations. Comments from States, environmental 
groups, and another mass-mailing campaign supported the ban of PCE at 
co-residential facilities with either an immediate ban or a phase-out 
over time. These commenters wanted dry cleaners to switch to 
alternative dry cleaning solvents. Some commenters supported the 
eventual phase-out of PCE and the interim imposition of technology 
requirements like New York's Part 232 regulations for all existing co-
residential machines.
    Response: Current technology controls to reduce PCE emissions from 
co-residential dry cleaning units--such as those embodied in the NY 
Part 232 requirements--have been generally effective in reducing 
exposures. Nevertheless, empirical evidence indicates that in certain 
cases PCE exposures may remain relatively high. We believe that further 
reductions are warranted to reduce potential exposure levels, but at 
the same time we believe that more stringent requirements should in 
part be based on considerations of cost, technical feasibility, and the 
availability of alternative technologies. Therefore, we are requiring 
existing sources to discontinue the use of PCE machines no later than 
December 21, 2020. In addition, our consideration of the relevant 
factors leads us to prohibit additional PCE-using machines from being 
installed.
    We recognize that the industry has made great strides in technology 
that reduces PCE emissions since the 1993 NESHAP was established. If 
the development of future technologies produces one that is 
demonstrated to adequately reduce PCE emissions and related exposures 
to residents of apartments co-located in buildings with dry cleaners, 
we would consider revisiting the necessity of the ban and phase-out of 
PCE in co-residential settings. Such a review could, for example, occur 
in the next round of our review of the developments in control 
technologies, processes and practices under section 112(d)(6) for this 
NESHAP.
    Some commenters suggest an immediate elimination of PCE in co-
residential settings and others suggested phasing out PCE use over the 
natural life of the equipment. An immediate ban would impose 
significant adverse impacts on owners and operators of existing 
sources, as would a ban falling within the three-year compliance window 
we have traditionally allowed for existing sources. For these small 
businesses, which have substantial investments in their current 
equipment, we have concluded that it is appropriate to allow them 
sufficient time to recover the investment over the useful life of the 
equipment and raise the needed capital to fund alternative solvent 
systems.
    The economic life of a PCE dry cleaning system is typically 15 
years. One State commenter suggested that to set a phase-out of 
existing sources based on the purchase date of each machine would be 
impracticable and a burden for States to implement. This commenter 
suggested picking a single date by which all current systems would need 
to be converted. Considering these factors, the final rule establishes 
a date 15 years from the date of the proposed rule, after which time 
all existing PCE systems at co-residential sources are prohibited. We 
selected this date since it corresponds to the date when we first 
publicly proposed the potential requirements for PCE dry cleaners in 
co-residential settings. This amount of time is necessary in order to 
phase out PCE use in co-residential settings without causing 
unacceptable adverse economic impacts, which would be the result if we 
imposed a 3-year compliance deadline.
    In addition, although it is unlikely that any additional co-
residential PCE-using sources came on-line between the date of 
publication of the proposed rule and the date the Administrator signed 
the final rule (July 13, 2006), in this rulemaking we are treating such 
sources that commenced construction between December 21, 2005, and July 
13, 2006 (if any exist), slightly differently than the way we are 
treating either existing sources discussed above or other new sources 
(which are required to comply with the PCE ban immediately upon startup 
or the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later). This is 
because the requirements we have adopted in the final rule for new co-
residential sources are more stringent than one of the two options we 
proposed. Under CAA section 112(i)(2)(A)-(B), these

[[Page 42737]]

uniquely situated new sources will also be required to eliminate PCE 
use, but not until three years after the effective date of the final 
rule. In the interim, they are required to comply with the second 
option we proposed for new co-residential sources and use refrigerated 
condensers and secondary carbon adsorbers, with equipment housed inside 
a vapor barrier with general ventilation to the outside air, as 
required by NYSDEC title 6 NYCRR Part 232 rules. These facilities will 
also have to conduct weekly leak inspections using a leak detection 
device such as a halogenated hydrocarbon detector. To require these 
sources, which may have installed equipment compliant with New York 
controls in reliance on our co-proposal of that option, to dismantle 
their PCE equipment immediately could impose severe economic hardship 
for these sources, contrary to the efforts we have taken in the rest of 
the rulemaking to avoid causing significant adverse impacts on small 
businesses.
    We anticipate that most existing systems will be relocated to 
nonresidential buildings or converted to alternative solvents prior to 
this date, given the range of ages of current co-residential sources. 
In the meantime, existing co-residential sources must also meet the 
additional control requirements in the final rule revisions for other 
area sources (i.e., eliminate transfer machines and use enhanced LDAR). 
We have decided not to impose additional control requirements on 
existing co-residential sources pending the phase-out of PCE use, such 
as the NYCRR Part 232 controls contained in our second proposed option 
addressing co-residential sources. While the NYCRR Part 232 controls 
are currently the most stringent technological controls required in the 
U.S., there is uncertainty about the precise effect of the NYCRR Part 
232 controls on risk. Industry commenters claim that the high risks are 
not representative, and that dry cleaning systems using this technology 
do not pose high risks. Others point out that high risks measured in 
New York buildings have been assessed as being caused by poor control 
equipment design, malfunctions of control equipment, poor ventilation 
designs, operator error, and other unregulated activities. We do not 
consider it necessary or appropriate to impose the costs of the NYCRR 
Part 232 controls in the interim before PCE use at co-residential 
sources is eliminated entirely. Moreover, our economic analysis 
indicates that imposing the New York requirements on existing sources 
elsewhere in the country, pending the PCE phase out, would cause a 
significant adverse economic impact on small businesses.
    The health risks from co-residential sources that we are concerned 
about are from chronic exposures, not acute. Thus, while short-term 
exposures from some sources will not be immediately reduced, this is 
not expected to result in adverse health effects. Further, although the 
full benefit of the ban (complete removal of sources and their 
associated risks from residential buildings) would not be realized 
until year 15, we expect that most sources would not wait until the 
15th year to retire their equipment since many of these sources are 
nearing the end of their useful lives. Thus, over the next 15 years, 
the final rule will systematically reduce exposures and risks from 
current levels as old equipment is retired and existing co-residential 
shops are either relocated or converted to alternative solvents, 
ultimately resulting in the elimination of these chronic health risks.
    About 80 percent of the co-residential sources already have 
installed controls similar to NYCRR Part 232 controls. Imposing 
additional capital costs on the approximately 250 remaining co-
residential sources is not reasonable given the significant costs of 
the controls and the fact that even they would be prohibited upon 
machine replacement or the arrival of the sunset date. For many of 
these shops, the remaining useful life of the machine would not allow 
full amortization of the capital investment before the system would 
have to be replaced. In addition, it is not clear how much additional 
risk protection would be achieved by the controls and what would be the 
significance of the emissions reduction, which would be realized only 
over the remaining useful life of each machine. For shops with PCE 
equipment that would be replaced within a few years, the health 
benefits would be limited and the capital costs would not be well 
spent. Therefore, temporarily imposing this control technology is not 
necessary under section 112(d)(6).
1. Risk Assessment Data
    Comment: Industry commenters claimed that the New York City data 
that EPA used to assess co-residential exposures were biased and these 
measured exposures are not representative of typical exposure. The 
sources of bias noted by the commenter were that: Residences sampled 
were selected based on complaints; sampled facilities may not have been 
in full compliance with NYCRR Part 232 rules; some samples taken soon 
after compliance with Part 232 and PCE would not have had time to 
dissipate to routine levels characteristic of the controls installed.
    Response: The NYC study, as described in McDermott (2005), states 
that ``indoor air perc levels in most apartments in dry cleaner 
buildings sampled were below, or only slightly above, the NYSDOH 
residential air guideline of 100 [mu]g/m\3\. Higher levels were found 
in dry cleaner buildings located in low-income, minority neighborhoods 
and in buildings elsewhere that had been the subject of a residential 
complaint. Since successful completion of the NYC Perc Project required 
that as many apartments as possible with elevated PCE levels be 
identified, the strategy for identifying buildings for inclusion was 
modified so that buildings located in minority or low-income ZIP code 
areas and those that had been the subject of complaint were 
prioritized.'' The article goes on to state on that the sample 
``obtained is not truly a random sample of all dry cleaners in the 
study area. However, socioeconomic characteristics of the census block 
groups where sampled buildings are located reflect socioeconomic 
characteristics of their larger ZIP Code area, are equivalent to census 
block groups where buildings that were not sampled are located, and are 
correlated with sampled household self-reported socioeconomic 
characteristics. Thus, conclusions drawn with respect to sampled 
building neighborhood characteristics and indoor air PCE level are 
likely to be applicable to other residential buildings matching NYC 
Perc Project building inclusion criteria (e.g., dry cleaner using PCE 
on-site; not other sources of VOC).''
    While the study authors believe that their results are likely 
generalizable to co-residential dry cleaners that meet similar criteria 
with respect to complaints and socioeconomic characteristics, the 
results cannot be generalized to all co-residential dry cleaners in NYC 
or across the country. We are not currently able to estimate the extent 
to which this study provides estimates that are biased. Nevertheless, 
these empirical results provide a representation of exposure levels 
that exist in New York City (where the vast majority of co-residential 
dry cleaners are located) and adequately serve as one basis for this 
rulemaking.
    Our risk assessment has focused on the exposures associated with 
dry cleaning facilities that are in compliance with the New York Part 
232 requirements. We examined the McDermott data, NYSDOH data, and 
public comments. To identify the compliant facilities, EPA ensured that

[[Page 42738]]

the date by which the sample was taken was after the date in which the 
facility began operating a fourth generation dry cleaning machine and 
had installed a vapor barrier. While the sampling dates are well 
documented, the compliance records for certain dry cleaning facilities 
are somewhat ambiguous; this is due to some limitations in the 
compliance records provided by NYSDOH. These records are comprised of 
initial notification letters that facilities have submitted to the 
NYSDEC as well as third-party inspection reports. EPA used a 
combination of these data to assess whether a particular facility was 
in or out of compliance with NYCRR Part 232. The result of this 
evaluation was a finding that 25 of the 65 sampled apartments were in 
the 9 buildings with potentially noncompliant dry cleaning systems, 
while 40 of the apartments were in the 14 buildings with compliant dry 
cleaning systems, and these were the values used to assess the risks 
associated with well-controlled dry cleaners. Nevertheless, we were 
unable to definitively determine the compliance status of one dry 
cleaner that was associated with high exposure level, as noted in the 
risk characterization memorandum in the docket. We believe that despite 
the uncertainty about this particular dry cleaner, our decision for the 
requirements for co-residential dry cleaners is warranted because it 
does not hinge on the compliance status of this particular facility.
2. Part 232 Technology Requirements
    Comment: Some commenters opposed the use of Title 6 NYCRR Part 232 
Technology Requirements for the final rule requirements, because these 
controls have not been effective in reducing exposure in residences. In 
addition this option would do nothing to reduce current risks in New 
York, where the majority of co-residential facilities are located. 
These commenters supported a ban of PCE because this is the only way to 
protect the public with an ample margin of safety. These commenters 
suggested that a phase-out of PCE should be accompanied by a sunset 
provision for existing machines or else co-residential dry cleaners 
would have the incentive not to replace their existing equipment. 
Rather, dry cleaners would continue to use their old, high-emitting 
equipment well beyond the normal economic life, resulting in continued 
high exposures to residences.
    Response: We have concluded that, based on available data, the 
NYCRR Part 232 controls have not been demonstrated to be effective in 
preventing significant exposures to PCE in certain cases.
    After reviewing technical developments in the industry, available 
public health risk information, and the comments received, we have 
concluded that the option that best satisfies the requirements of CAA 
section 112(d)(6) for existing co-residential area sources is to phase 
out the use of PCE. In addition to the potential for co-residential dry 
cleaners to cause high individual cancer risks (as fully discussed in 
the proposed rule), we believe that the cancer incidence estimates for 
these sources also justifies the decision. Estimates of cancer 
incidence are helpful in characterizing cancer risks, because such 
estimates account for the full range of exposures that have been 
captured by the monitoring and provide a metric of the aggregate health 
impact taking into account the number of people exposed to varying 
levels of risk. Our estimate of annual cancer incidence for the 
approximately 1300 co-residential sources currently in operation is in 
the range of 0.2 to 2 cases per year, which is on par with the 
estimated annual incidence of 0.4 to 4 cases per year for the 
approximately 27,000 other area source cleaners. The near-parity of 
these two estimates, notwithstanding the much smaller number of co-
residential vis-[agrave]-vis other sources, suggests that co-
residential sources pose a disproportionate cancer incidence to their 
residents. Further, this estimate of total cancer incidence for the co-
residential sources is at the high-end of cancer incidence estimates 
that we have generated for other source categories reviewed by the 
residual risk program to date.
    As we have previously noted, these cancer incidence estimates carry 
significant uncertainties since they are sensitive to assumptions 
regarding the number of individuals exposed and the level of exposure 
borne by residents of un-monitored apartments. However, when viewed in 
the context of the other risk information and the availability of 
alternative dry cleaning processes, we believe that the incidence 
estimates provide additional support for a requirement for new 
installations at co-residential facilities to adopt a non-PCE solvent.
    We have determined that a phase out that takes place too quickly 
would impose significant adverse impacts on dry cleaners. For these 
small businesses, which have substantial investments in their current 
equipment, it is appropriate to allow them sufficient time to recover 
the investment over the useful life of the equipment and raise the 
needed capital to fund alternative solvent systems. The final rule 
establishes a date 15 years from the date of the proposed rule, after 
which time all PCE systems at co-residential sources are prohibited. We 
anticipate that most systems will be relocated to nonresidential 
buildings or converted to alternative solvents prior to this date.
3. Economic Impact of PCE Phase-Out
    Comment: Industry commenters opposed the phase-out of new PCE 
installations because it would cause a significant effect on a 
substantial number of small businesses. The commenters said that the 
EPA underestimated the costs of this option because the EPA analysis 
overestimated dry cleaner revenues, underestimated the cost of 
hydrocarbon equipment, underestimated the cost of meeting fire codes, 
and used a 7 percent interest rate, which is unrealistically low. In 
addition, the commenters maintained that any type of ban on PCE would 
send a misleading signal that PCE is unsafe and would cause landlords 
to not renew leases of dry cleaners. This severe economic impact was 
not accounted for in EPA's economic analysis.
    Response: The estimates of impacts provided in the Agency's 
economic analysis for the rule are in terms of annualized compliance 
cost per revenues for parent firms. It is not in terms of compliance 
cost per profits as asserted by the commenter. The commenter states 
that the impact will be a ``substantial'' increase in costs and a 
decrease in profit margin far in excess of the five percent impact on 
year-to-year profits accepted as a benchmark. The benchmark of at least 
five percent impact on year-to-year profits as a benchmark for 
significant impacts is, however, not a benchmark that the Agency has 
recognized as such in the recent past. The cost-to-sales calculation 
provided in the economic impact analysis has been an accepted approach 
for indicating the potential economic impacts to small and other 
businesses as part of the process to determine the degree of small 
business impacts associated with a proposed rule.
    We chose to use the industry revenue average for 1997 instead of 
the data from Census for 2002 because it was readily available to the 
model we chose to employ for generating the economic impact results at 
the time of the analysis. The value we used from the Census does 
reflect the average revenue per firm and applying this value is 
consistent with revenue estimates used in economic impact analyses that 
accompanied recent Agency rulemakings. A review of average revenue for 
firms in the dry cleaning

[[Page 42739]]

industry from the 2002 Economic Census showed that this average revenue 
was 10 percent higher than the value from the 1997 Economic Census. 
Hence, our economic impact estimates will be lower using average 
revenues per firm from the 2002 Census as compared to the values used 
in the current economic impact analysis.
    It should be noted that use of the average revenue-per-firm 
estimate suggested by the commenter of $204,000 in the Agency's 
analysis would lead to higher estimated impacts to small businesses 
than calculated by EPA but would not lead to any impacts above three 
percent of sales, a benchmark among others often considered as 
significant in characterizing small business impacts.
    The incremental cost between a PCE and a hydrocarbon machine is a 
reasonable estimate of the cost of eliminating PCE at a facility 
because, on balance, the rule revisions will not affect the economic 
life of a machine. We assume that at the end of the machine's 15-year 
economic life, the machine has no salvage value. Instead of purchasing 
a PCE machine, the owner incurs the incremental cost of purchasing a 
hydrocarbon machine. Some sources may be required by their landlord to 
retire their PCE machine before the end of its useful life; EPA 
acknowledges that such premature retirements may create a separate 
additional burden on owners. Other sources may choose to maintain their 
machine beyond its normal economic life. Because predicting these 
effects would be very difficult, we assume that these effects do not 
change our assumption of a 15 year economic life for these machines. A 
number of commenters agreed with our estimate of 15 years for the 
economic life of these machines.
    Our cost estimate is a reasonable appraisal of costs. Our estimate 
that 50 percent of facilities outside New York that install hydrocarbon 
machines would need a sprinkler system is similar to the commenter's 
estimate of 66 percent. The chart of fire code geographic applicability 
provided by the commenter is not a sure indicator of whether a facility 
would need a sprinkler system because machine vendors are often able to 
obtain a case-by-case variance if they can demonstrate fire protection 
features integral to the machine. Regarding the cost per facility 
outside of New York City, the cost in the docket item cited by the 
commenter was from a machine vendor. We used a lower estimate provided 
by a sprinkler contractor. Sprinkler system costs for plants in New 
York City are particularly difficult to estimate because of the fact 
that actual costs are unavailable because few if any systems have been 
built because of their high cost. In addition, by the time PCE machines 
in co-residential facilities need to be replaced, between now and the 
sunset date in 2020, it is possible that a less combustible solvent 
will be available, and sprinkler systems not required for plants that 
can no longer use PCE.
    The use of 7 percent in annualizing costs is consistent with the 
guidance of OMB Circular A-94. Besides the quote from Circular A-4 
listed by the commenter in footnote 56 on page 30, the Circular also 
recommends that 7 percent be used for annualizing the costs of 
regulatory analyses. As mentioned in Circular A-4, ``As a default 
position, OMB Circular A-94 states that a real discount rate of 7 
percent should be used as a base-case for regulatory analysis. The 7 
percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to 
private capital in the U.S. economy. It is a broad measure that 
reflects the returns to real estate and small business capital as well 
as corporate capital. It approximates the opportunity cost of capital, 
and it is the appropriate discount rate whenever the main effect of a 
regulation is to displace or alter the use of capital in the private 
sector. OMB revised Circular A-94 in 1992 after extensive internal 
review and public comment. In a recent analysis, OMB found that the 
average rate of return to capital remains near the 7 percent rate 
estimated in 1992. Circular A-94 also recommends using other discount 
rates to show the sensitivity of the estimates to the discount rate 
assumption.'' In addition to a 7 percent discount rate, we have also 
analyzed costs using a 3 percent discount rate, consistent with the 
requirements of Circular A-4.
4. Alternative Solvents
    Comment: Some commenters opposed the use of alternative solvents 
because of the potential negative impacts. These potential impacts 
include uncertainty about the toxicity of cyclic siloxanes; increased 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from hydrocarbons; safety 
hazard of carbon dioxide (CO2); large quantities of 
wastewater from wet cleaners; and the fire hazard of hydrocarbons and 
cyclic siloxanes (D5).
    Response: We recognize that each of the alternative processes has 
potential drawbacks. However, with the variety of choices of 
alternative systems that are currently available, dry cleaners can find 
a system that can work for their individual circumstances. The 
potential concerns brought up by the commenters are addressed below.
    A dry cleaner that switches solvents from PCE to a hydrocarbon 
solvent would increase emissions of VOC, because hydrocarbon solvents 
are classified as a VOC and PCE is not. Increased VOC emissions could 
result in an increase in atmospheric ozone at some locations, depending 
on the mix of ozone precursors in the ambient air locally. Any new 
hydrocarbon machines would be subject to the new source performance 
standard (NSPS) for petroleum dry cleaners (40 CFR 60, subpart JJJ). 
The NSPS limits VOC emissions by requiring application of the best 
demonstrated control technology. The VOC emissions of a hydrocarbon 
machine at an average-sized facility are approximately 0.2 tons per 
year, which is a relatively small quantity for non-HAP VOC. Given the 
high risks posed by PCE in co-residential settings, we have concluded 
that the public health benefit of using alternative solvents, even if 
some of the alternatives are ozone precursors, supports elimination of 
PCE use in co-residential area sources (considering developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies). In cases where VOC 
emissions from hydrocarbon machines would contribute significantly to 
ozone formation, the responsible air quality planning agency can 
require additional emission controls for VOC, as appropriate. Regarding 
HAP emissions, although benzene was once a significant component of 
Stoddard solvent alternatives it is now present only in trace amounts. 
We are unaware that any of the other solvents currently used in dry 
cleaning contain any of the CAA listed HAP.
    EPA is not currently in a position to characterize the potential 
risks to human health or the environment associated with the use of 
decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5), an odorless, colorless siloxane 
fluid, as a dry cleaning solvent. In 2003, EPA received from Dow 
Corning the preliminary results of a two-year chronic toxicity and 
carcinogenicity study on D5 using rats. Preliminary results suggest 
that female rats exposed to the highest concentration of D5 exhibited a 
statistically significant increase of uterine tumors. The final results 
of the two-year study confirmed the significant increase in uterine 
tumors following exposure at the highest concentration of D5, while no 
significant increase in tumors was observed at lower doses. EPA is in 
the process of evaluating studies received on the mode of action to 
help determine whether a potential carcinogenic hazard

[[Page 42740]]

is associated with D5. Subsequent action may include external peer 
review of data and a determination whether it is appropriate to conduct 
a risk assessment for D5. EPA has developed a fact sheet describing its 
current state of knowledge on D5 that is available on the Garment and 
Textile Web site and that can be used by industry to guide decisions 
regarding the use of D5 in dry cleaning.
    Hydrocarbon solvents and cyclic siloxanes can present a fire hazard 
because of their combustibility. However, hydrocarbon solvent dry 
cleaning machines have a long history of safety, as do cyclic 
siloxanes. We know of no fires in this country from the use of cyclic 
siloxanes or the synthetic hydrocarbon solvents currently in use. Dry 
cleaning machines that use these solvents are designed with special 
safety features, such as fireproof electrical connections, nitrogen 
blanketing, temperature controls to prevent explosion, and others.
    For CO2 systems, the commenters were referring to 
possible hazards due to the high pressure at which these systems 
operate. However, we are unaware of any safety-related accidents 
regarding CO2 systems. The systems currently in use are 
designed to withstand the high pressures required. The pressures at 
which these machines operate are not extreme compared to many other 
processes, and the engineering to operate safely at these pressures is 
well understood.
    Wet cleaning systems are widely used in the industry either to 
reduce PCE consumption or as a replacement for PCE dry cleaning. While 
wet cleaning generates wastewater, we are not aware of any health 
hazards from this waste. We expect that waste generated by wet cleaning 
systems will be significantly less hazardous than waste from PCE 
systems they replace.

G. Technical Corrections to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP

    Based on comments received, we have made some technical corrections 
to the NESHAP in addition to those proposed. Many of these changes are 
needed to update the rule to reflect advances in PCE dry cleaning 
technology. Other changes harmonize the revisions with the existing 
NESHAP. The most significant technical changes are listed below. None 
of these changes affect the stringency of the rule or increase 
regulatory burden.
1. Additional Information Requested in the Notice of Compliance Status 
Report
    We have added a requirement to indicate in the notice of compliance 
report if the dry cleaning facility is a major source or is located in 
a building with a residence or a business. This one-time requirement 
will impose no additional cost to the industry since the notice of 
compliance report is already required to be submitted.
2. Alternative Monitoring Requirement
    We revised the monitoring requirement for refrigerated condensers 
to specify that owners and operators must monitor the high and low 
pressure of the refrigeration system, rather than the exit temperature, 
in cases where the system is equipped with pressure gauges. The 
pressure readings of the refrigeration system are the preferred 
monitoring parameters since these parameters are the most reliable 
indicators that the condenser is functioning properly during the drying 
phase, which represents maximum load conditions.
    Virtually all machines have instrumentation for measuring the high 
and low pressures of the refrigeration system and vendor specifications 
for the pressure ranges that indicate proper operation of the 
condenser. However, for refrigeration systems that are not equipped 
with pressure gauges, the rule requires owners and operators to monitor 
the temperature of the gas-vapor outlet stream.

V. Impacts

A. Major Sources

    The national capital cost of the final rule for major sources is 
$30,000, with an annual cost savings of about $250,000. The capital 
costs for individual facilities would range from $0 to $3,300 with a 
median cost of $3,300. Annualized costs would range from a cost savings 
of $84,000,000 per year to a cost of $1,319 per year. 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 highest maximum individual cancer risk are estimated to 
be reduced from a range of 50-in-1 million (using OPPTS potency values) 
to 400-in-1 million (using CalEPA potency values) down to a range of 
20-in-1 million (using OPPTS potency values) to 200-in-1 million (using 
CalEPA potency values).

B. Area Sources

    The final rule will reduce PCE emissions by an estimated 5,700 tons 
per year and will result in a net cost savings.
    The capital costs to implement these requirements are $12 million. 
The enhanced LDAR program would cost about $5 million for an estimated 
20,000 facilities 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 at a cost of 
about $36,000 each for a total industry cost of $7.5 million.
    Annually, we estimate a cost savings to the industry of about $2.7 
million per year. This cost savings 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 offset the annualized cost of the new equipment. In particular, most 
of the transfer machines are beyond the end of their economic life and 
it would be economically beneficial for the facilities to replace the 
transfer machines with dry-to-dry machines. Thus, we conclude the 
economic impacts to the affected businesses and facilities are 
negligible.

C. Co-Residential Sources

    By the fifteenth year, the final rule will reduce PCE emissions 
from co-residential sources by an additional 317 tons/year. Cancer 
risks from all co-residential sources will be eliminated by the 
fifteenth year.
    The national capital costs for new co-residential sources are $63.4 
million, and the annualized costs are about $7.0 million in the 
fifteenth year. These cost estimates reflect the incremental capital 
and operating cost for 1,300 co-residential facilities to replace their 
PCE machines with machines using hydrocarbon solvent. The incremental 
cost was estimated as the difference between the costs of a new PCE 
machine meeting the NESHAP and a new machine using hydrocarbon 
solvents. The operating cost includes the cost of installing fire 
protection sprinklers in jurisdictions that are estimated to require 
sprinklers for hydrocarbon machines. The cost will be lower at 
facilities that already have sprinkler systems in place, that choose a 
less costly alternative garment cleaning option utilizing non-
combustible solvents, or that choose to convert their facility to a 
drop shop and conduct PCE dry cleaning operations offsite.
    An alternative calculation of the costs to co-residential sources 
using a net present value methodology shows that these costs are $3.5 
million per year at

[[Page 42741]]

a 7 percent interest rate and $3.9 million per year at a 3 percent 
interest rate. These cost estimates are derived from the summing of the 
present value of the costs from the co-residential phase-out during the 
period over which the phase-out occurs, amortized over 15 years. This 
estimate provides a measure of the costs of the co-residential phase-
out over the time period in which the phase-out takes place rather than 
an estimate of the costs for the fifteenth year.

VI. 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 final 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 the final 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 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 
EPA or the delegated State regulatory authority. Notifications, 
reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are 
required, in general, of all sources subject to the 1993 Dry Cleaning 
NESHAP. Owners or operators subject to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP 
continue to maintain records and retain them for at least five years 
following the date of such measurements, reports, and records. 
Information collection requirements that were promulgated on 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 revisions to the Dry Cleaning NESHAP. To comply 
with the 2005 revisions to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP, owners or 
operators of dry cleaning facilities read instructions to determine how 
they are affected. All sources will begin an enhanced LDAR program that 
requires a handheld portable monitor. Major source facilities will 
purchase a PCE gas analyzer and area sources will purchase a 
halogenated hydrocarbon leak detector. Owners and operators will 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 are 
$552,825.
    Owners and operators of major and area sources conduct enhanced 
leak detection and repair and keep monthly records of enhanced leak 
detection and repair events.
    Approximately 28,000 existing area sources and 12 existing major 
sources are subject to the 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 three 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 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.

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 this final 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

[[Page 42742]]

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. In 
addition, we used average revenues for firms in the dry cleaning 
industry instead of median revenues. This was because the Census data 
source that we utilized did not report medium revenues for firms by 
industry. For more detail, see the current Economic Impact Analysis in 
the public docket.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that the final 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 final rule to 
affected small entities in the entire PCE dry cleaning source category 
and considers the economic impact associated with the options for co-
residential facilities. Over 98 percent of the approximately 20,000 
small entities directly regulated by the final rule, including both 
major and area sources, are expected to have costs of less than one 
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 final 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 final rule are 
owned by businesses within NAICS 812332. The final rule is expected to 
affect 11 ultimate parent businesses that will be regulated as major 
sources. Six of the parent businesses are small according to the SBA 
small business size standard. None of the six firms has an annualized 
cost of more than one percent of sales associated with meeting the 
requirements for major sources.
    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 final area source requirements are 
expected to have the following impacts. Ninety-four percent of the 
approximately 20,000 small entities owning area sources directly 
regulated by the final rule, are expected to have costs of less than 
0.9 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 have to replace their 
transfer machines (or one percent of the total number of affected small 
entities), most of these businesses are expected to experience an 
annual cost savings and the others are expected to have compliance 
costs of less than 1.2 percent of sales. Of the remaining 1,000 
affected small businesses (or 3.5 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 option for co-
residential area sources range from 0.9 to 1.9 percent of sales.
    Cost impacts associated with the final decision for major sources 
are presented in section V.A of this preamble. These impacts are also 
presented for area sources in section V.B, and for co-residential 
sources in section V.C. These impacts are detailed in the BID in the 
public docket as memoranda five through seven. For more information on 
the small entity economic impacts associated with the final decisions 
for dry cleaners affected by the final rule, please refer to the 
Economic Impact Analysis in the public docket.
    Although the final rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless tried to 
reduce the impact of the rule on small entities. When developing the 
final 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. 
In response to comments, we revised the compliance period for major and 
area sources from 90 days to two years. Additionally, we added a 
provision to the rule that allows containers for separator water to be 
uncovered while the containers are in use.
    Following publication of the final rule, copies of the Federal 
Register notice and, in some cases, background documents, will be 
publicly available to all industries, organizations, and trade 
associations that have had input during the regulation development, as 
well as State and local agencies.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires 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 final rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector in any 1 year. Thus, the final rule is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that the final rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such 
governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, the final rule 
is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.

[[Page 42743]]

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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 implications.'' The final 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 final standards for dry cleaning facilities. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

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

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule 
amendment and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of the final rule amendment in the Federal 
Register. The final rule amendment is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule is effective on July 27, 2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: July 13, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart M--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.320 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (b).
0
b. By revising paragraph (c).
0
c. By revising paragraph (d).
0
d. By revising paragraph (e).


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,

[[Page 42744]]

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 July 28, 2008, except as provided by Sec.  63.6(b)(4), as 
applicable.
    (2)(i) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or 
reconstruction on or after December 21, 2005 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 July 27, 2006 or immediately 
upon startup, whichever is later.
    (ii) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or 
reconstruction on or after December 21, 2005, but before July 13, 2006, 
and is located in a building with a residence, shall be in compliance 
with the provisions of this subpart, except Sec.  63.322(o), 
immediately upon startup; shall be in compliance with the provisions of 
Sec.  63.322(o)(5)(ii) beginning on July 27, 2006; and shall be in 
compliance with the provisions of Sec.  63.322(o)(5)(i) beginning on 
July 27, 2009.
    (3) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or 
reconstruction on or after July 27, 2006, shall be in compliance with 
the 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 July 28, 2008.
    (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 Sec. Sec.  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 total PCE 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 
Sec. Sec.  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 PCE consumption of the dry cleaning facility is less than 760 
liters (200 gallons) per year. Consumption is determined according to 
Sec.  63.323(d).
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.321 is amended by revising the definition of Filter, and 
adding in alphabetical order definitions for Halogenated hydrocarbon 
detector, PCE gas analyzer, Residence, Vapor barrier enclosure, and 
Vapor leak to read as follows:


Sec.  63.321  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Filter means a porous device through which PCE 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 PCE 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.
* * * * *
    PCE gas analyzer means a flame ionization detector, photoionization 
detector, or infrared analyzer capable of detecting vapor 
concentrations of PCE 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 barrier enclosure means a room that encloses a dry cleaning 
system and is constructed of vapor barrier material that is impermeable 
to perchloroethylene. The enclosure shall be equipped with a 
ventilation system that exhausts outside the building and is completely 
separate from the ventilation system for any other area of the 
building. The exhaust system shall be designed and operated to maintain 
negative pressure and a ventilation rate of at least one air change per 
five minutes. The vapor barrier enclosure shall be constructed of 
glass, plexiglass, polyvinyl chloride, PVC sheet 22 mil thick (0.022 
in.), sheet metal, metal foil face composite board, or other materials 
that are impermeable to perchloroethylene vapor. The enclosure shall be 
constructed so that all joints and seams are sealed except for inlet 
make-up air and exhaust openings and the entry door.
    Vapor leak means a PCE 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 PCE gas analyzer.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.322 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (e)(3).
0
b. By revising paragraph (j).
0
c. By revising paragraph (k) introductory text.
0
d. By revising paragraph (k)(11).
0
e. By revising paragraph (m).
0
f. By adding paragraph (o).


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.
* * * * *
    (j) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall store all 
PCE and wastes that contain PCE in solvent tanks or solvent containers 
with no perceptible leaks. The exception to this requirement is that 
containers for separator water may be uncovered, as necessary, for 
proper operation of the machine and still.
    (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 PCE 
gas analyzer also fulfills the requirement for inspection for 
perceptible leaks. The following components shall be inspected:
* * * * *

[[Page 42745]]

    (11) All Filter housings.
* * * * *
    (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 PCE 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 PCE gas 
analyzer operated according to EPA Method 21.
    (iii) Any inspection conducted according to this paragraph shall 
satisfy the requirements to conduct an inspection for perceptible leaks 
under Sec.  63.322(k) or (l) of this subpart.
    (2) The owner or operator of each dry cleaning system installed 
after December 21, 2005, at an area source shall route the air-PCE gas-
vapor stream contained within each dry cleaning machine through a 
refrigerated condenser and pass the air-PCE gas-vapor stream from 
inside the dry cleaning machine drum through a non-vented 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.
    (3) The owner or operator of any dry cleaning system shall 
eliminate any emission of PCE during the transfer of articles between 
the washer and the dryer(s) or reclaimer(s).
    (4) The owner or operator shall eliminate any emission of PCE from 
any dry cleaning system that is installed (including relocation of a 
used machine) after December 21, 2005, and that is located in a 
building with a residence.
    (5)(i) After December 21, 2020, the owner or operator shall 
eliminate any emission of PCE from any dry cleaning system that is 
located in a building with a residence.
    (ii) Sources demonstrating compliance under Section 
63.320(b)(2)(ii) shall comply with paragraph (o)(5)(ii)(A) through (C), 
in addition to the other applicable requirements of this section:
    (A) Operate the dry cleaning system inside a vapor barrier 
enclosure. The exhaust system for the enclosure shall be operated at 
all times that the dry cleaning system is in operation and during 
maintenance. The entry door to the enclosure may be open only when a 
person is entering or exiting the enclosure.
    (B) 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 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.
    (C) Inspect the machine components listed in paragraph (k) of this 
section for vapor leaks weekly while the component is in operation. 
These inspections shall be conducted using a halogenated hydrocarbon 
detector or PCE 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.

0
5. Section 63.323 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a)(1).
0
b. By revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), and (b)(2).
0
c. By revising paragraph (c).


Sec.  63.323  Test methods and monitoring.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator shall monitor the following parameters, 
as applicable, on a weekly basis:
    (i) The refrigeration system high pressure and low pressure during 
the drying phase to determine if they are in the range specified in the 
manufacturer's operating instructions.
    (ii) If the machine is not equipped with refrigeration system 
pressure gauges, the temperature of the air-perchloroethylene gas-vapor 
stream on the outlet side of the refrigerated condenser on a dry-to-dry 
machine, dryer, or reclaimer with a temperature sensor to determine if 
it is equal to or less than 7.2 [deg]C (45 [deg]F) before the end of 
the cool-down or drying cycle while the gas-vapor stream is flowing 
through the condenser. The temperature sensor shall be used according 
to the manufacturer's instructions and shall be designed to measure a 
temperature of 7.2 [deg]C (45 [deg]F) to an accuracy of 1.1 
[deg]C (2 [deg]F).
* * * * *
    (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.  
63.322(o)(2), the owner or operator shall measure the concentration of 
PCE in the exhaust of the carbon adsorber weekly with a colorimetric 
detector tube or PCE 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 PCE 
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 PCE gas analyzer designed 
to measure a concentration of 100 parts per million by volume of PCE in 
air to an accuracy of 25 parts per million by volume; and
    (2) Use the colorimetric detector tube or PCE gas analyzer 
according to the manufacturer's instructions; and
* * * * *
    (c) If the air-PCE gas vapor stream is passed through a carbon 
adsorber prior to machine door opening to comply with Sec.  
63.322(b)(3) or Sec.  63.322(o)(2), the owner or operator of an 
affected facility shall measure the concentration of PCE in the dry 
cleaning machine drum at the end of the dry cleaning cycle weekly with 
a colorimetric detector tube or PCE gas analyzer to determine that the 
PCE 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 PCE gas analyzer designed 
to measure a concentration of 300 parts per million by volume of PCE in 
air to an accuracy of 75 parts per million by volume; and
    (2) Use the colorimetric detector tube or PCE gas analyzer 
according to the manufacturer's instructions; and
    (3) Conduct the weekly monitoring by inserting the colorimetric 
detector or PCE 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.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.324 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(5), and (d)(6).
0
b. By adding paragraph (f).

[[Page 42746]]

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), (b), or (o); 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).
* * * * *
    (f) Each owner or operator of a dry cleaning facility shall submit 
to the Administrator or delegated State authority by registered mail on 
or before July 28, 2008 a notification of compliance status providing 
the following information and signed by a responsible official who 
shall certify its accuracy:
    (1) The name and address of the owner or operator;
    (2) The address (that is, physical location) of the dry cleaning 
facility;
    (3) If they are located in a building with a residence(s), even if 
the residence is vacant at the time of this notification;
    (4) If they are located in a building with no other tenants, leased 
space, or owner occupants;
    (5) Whether they are a major or area source;
    (6) The yearly PCE solvent consumption based upon the yearly 
solvent consumption calculated according to Sec.  63.323(d);
    (7) Whether or not they are in compliance with each applicable 
requirement of Sec.  63.322; and
    (8) All information contained in the statement is accurate and 
true.

[FR Doc. 06-6447 Filed 7-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
