From:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, January 4, 2021 4:28 PM
To:
SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: SunCoke's review - target date

Hello,

Thank you very much for providing comments and information to EPA's responses.

One issue that EPA wanted to follow up on is regarding calculating tons per year (TPY) for the HNR charging units.

The EPA will use lb/ton wet coal charged values as the industry emission factor unit of measurement starting point for calculating TPY emissions for the units that do not have Coke ICR Enclosure 2 test data (Thank you for providing the Appendix G for confirmation of these values).

With that in mind, the EPA still needs some additional data to use in conjunction with the emission factors in order to calculate TPY emissions.

The EPA response to the SunCoke whole industry data review outlined 4 additional data needed options:
For the new methodology, we need one of these four data options for wet coal charged values to move forward with the TPY calculation:
1) Annual wet coal charged per PCM; or
2) Annual wet coal charged per Battery; or
3) Wet coal charged capacity per PCM w/ CU%; or
4) Wet coal charged capacity per Battery w/ CU%.
Please let us know which additional data option you think is the best methodology for calculating TPY emissions for the charging units.
Attached is the EPA response applicable to this issue for your reference with the tab `Units' for you to input the needed data for all the SunCoke facilities.
SunCoke_Charging_WetCoalCharged.xlsx

Please let us know if you have any questions or if there is something we are misunderstanding about your last response on this issue.

Thank you!
Gabrielle

Gabrielle Raymond
she/her/hers
RTI International
3040 Cornwallis Road
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<< SunCoke_Charging_WetCoalCharged.xlsx >>


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 213 (Monday, November 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 61761]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ22-2-000]

City of Vernon, California; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on November 1, 2021, the City of Vernon,
California submitted its tariff filing: Revised Transmission Revenue
Requirement and Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment with
an effective date of January 1, 2022.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 22, 2021.

    Dated: November 2, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-24352 Filed 11-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73207-73219]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26469]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155; FRL-8391-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV44

National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry
Cleaning Facilities Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for dry cleaning facilities using perchloroethylene
(PCE) as the cleaning solvent (PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP). The proposed
amendments address the results of the technology review for the PCE Dry
Cleaning NESHAP, in accordance with section 112 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Based on the findings of the technology review, the EPA proposes
to add provisions to the rule which will require all dry-to-dry
machines at existing major and area sources to have both refrigerated
condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 10, 2022.
    Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before January 11, 2022, we will hold a virtual public hearing.
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and
registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0155, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2005-0155 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0155.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance of caution
for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and
Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only to reduce the
risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff also continues
to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. Hand
deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only.
For further information on EPA Docket Center services and the current
status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(Mail Code D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Participation in virtual public hearing. Please note that because
of current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social
distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold in-
person public meetings at this time.
    To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing
team at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected]. If
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on January 11, 2022. The
hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude
at 3:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last
pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional
speakers. The EPA will announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of this document
in the Federal Register. To register to speak at the virtual hearing,
please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission or contact the public hearing
team at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected]. The
last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be January 10,
2022. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that
will list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to
[email protected]. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth
above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at
(888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine if
there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in
the Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or special
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by January
3, 2022. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without
advanced notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155. All documents in the docket are
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, 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, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0155. The EPA's policy is that all

comments received will be included in the public docket without change
and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov/,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any
information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be
submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the Docket
Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. Our
Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries or couriers will be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155. Note that
written comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed
and no hand deliveries will be accepted.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document
wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to
the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While
this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble
and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and
acronyms here:

CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDC Center for Disease Control
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EJ environmental justice
FR Federal Register
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORCR Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
PCE perchloroethylene
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBA Small Business Administration
SBEAP Small Business Environmental Assistance Program
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are these source categories and how does the current
NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
    E. How does the EPA perform the technology review?
III. Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale
    A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
    B. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Request for Comments
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    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 Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart M, apply to industrial and
commercial dry cleaning facilities that use PCE. The North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes applicable to 40 CFR part
63, subpart M, are 812310 (coin-operated laundries and dry cleaners),
812320 (dry cleaning and laundry services other than coin-operated
services), and 812332 (industrial launderers). This list of categories
and NAICS codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action are
likely to affect.
    As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR
31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial
Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992),
the PCE dry cleaning source categories include any facility engaged in
cleaning soiled apparel, leather, and other fine goods. These are
usually small independently operated neighborhood shops, franchise
shops, and small specialty shops. The source categories only include
facilities that use PCE as a cleaning agent.
    Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be
affected by this proposed action.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA
will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key
technical documents at this same website.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory
process to develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves
establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves
evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed
to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This
second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.''
In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA
to review MACT and generally available control technology (GACT)
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years and revise the
standards as necessary taking into account developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies. This review is commonly referred to
as the ``technology review,'' and is the subject of this proposal. The
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews:
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may
set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission standards.
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as ``beyond-the-floor'' standards. For area sources, CAA
section 112(d)(5) allows the EPA to set standards based on GACT
standards in lieu of MACT standards. For categories of major sources
and any area source categories subject to MACT standards, the second
stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any
remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk pursuant to CAA section 112(f) and
concurrently conducting a technology review pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6). For categories of area sources subject to GACT standards,
there is no requirement to address residual risk, but, similar to the
major source categories, the technology review is required.
    CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards
promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as necessary
(taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In conducting this
review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the EPA is not
required to recalculate the MACT floors that were established in
earlier rulemakings. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA,
529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers,
Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost
in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6). The EPA is required to address regulatory gaps, such as
missing standards for listed air toxics known to be emitted from the
source category, and any new MACT standards must be established under
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), or, in specific circumstances, CAA
sections 112(d)(4)

or (h). Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 955 F.3d
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

B. What are these source categories and how does the current NESHAP
regulate their HAP emissions?

    The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP was originally promulgated September
22, 1993 (58 FR 49376) as 40 CFR part 63, subpart M. Significant
amendments were promulgated on June 3, 1996 (61 FR 27788), December 14,
1999 (64 FR 69643), July 27, 2006 (71 FR 42743), and July 11, 2008 (73
FR 39871). The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP includes MACT standards which
apply to major sources, and GACT standards which apply to area sources
of dry cleaning that use the chemical PCE. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP
regulates PCE emitted from the dry cleaning process.
    Dry cleaning is any cleaning process for clothing and other
garments using a solvent other than water. PCE, also known as perc,
tetrachloroethene, or tetrachloroethylene has been, historically, the
most widely used liquid solvent in dry cleaning. Dry cleaning
facilities may provide dry cleaning and laundering services at the
location, or the facility may be a drop-off only location that
transports the garments to a separate location where the cleaning is
performed. Establishments may also offer specialty cleaning services
for garments and textiles such as fur, leather, suede, wedding gowns,
draperies, and pillows.
    PCE dry cleaning machines are classified into two types: Transfer
and dry-to-dry. Similar to residential washing machines and dryers,
transfer machines include a unit for washing and another unit for
drying. Following the wash cycle, PCE-containing articles are manually
transferred from the washer to the dryer. The transfer of wet fabrics
is the predominant source of PCE emissions in these systems. Transfer
machines are prohibited at all existing and new major and area sources
due to the NESHAP's requirement that dry cleaning systems eliminate any
emissions of PCE while transferring articles between the washer and the
dryer or reclaimer. Therefore, transfer machines are no longer sold,
and none are known to still be in operation as these machines have
reached the end of their useful lives and should have been replaced by
dry-to-dry machines. Dry-to-dry machines wash, extract, and dry the
articles in a single machine. 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.
    ``Fourth generation'' dry-to-dry machines were introduced in the
early 1990s. A fourth generation dry-to-dry machine is a closed-loop
system that uses a refrigerated condenser(s) to recycle PCE from the
wash cycle, and a carbon adsorption unit(s) to filter PCE from the drum
at the end of the dry cycle. The refrigerated condenser is a vapor
recovery system into which an air-PCE gas-vapor stream is routed and
the PCE is condensed by cooling the gas-vapor stream. The air remaining
in the machine at the end of the dry cleaning cycle then passes through
a carbon adsorber prior to opening the machine door. The carbon
adsorber is a bed of activated carbon into which the air-PCE gas-vapor
stream is routed and PCE is adsorbed on the carbon. The use of the
carbon adsorber in combination with the refrigerated condenser offers
greater emissions reductions over a dry-to-dry machine equipped with
only a refrigerated condenser because it reduces the PCE concentration
in the air remaining in the machine once the dry cleaning cycle is
complete instead of allowing those vapors to be vented or released at
the end of the dry cleaning cycle.
    The latest generation machines, or ``fifth generation'' machines
were introduced in the late 1990s. They have the same control
technology as fourth generation machines, but they are also equipped
with an inductive fan, internal solvent vapor monitoring devices
(sensor), and interlock (lockout) devices that will not allow access to
the machine until solvent vapor concentrations are below 300 ppm. The
lockout feature ensures that the PCE set-point has been attained before
the machine door can be opened, but it does not remove additional PCE.
    Per 40 CFR 63.320, a dry cleaning facility is a major source if the
facility emits or has the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year
of PCE to the atmosphere. A dry cleaning facility is considered an area
source if it does not meet the criteria for major sources, as specified
in 40 CFR 63.320. However, in lieu of measuring or determining a
facility's potential to emit PCE emissions, a dry cleaning facility is
a major source if: (1) It includes only dry-to-dry machine(s) and has a
total yearly PCE consumption greater than 2,100 gallons as determined
according to 40 CFR 63.323(d); or (2) it includes only transfer machine
system(s) or both dry-to-dry machine(s) and transfer machine system(s)
and has a total yearly PCE consumption greater than 1,800 gallons as
determined according to 40 CFR 63.323(d).
    As defined by the initial list of source categories publish on July
16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP applies to the
following major and area sources of HAP emissions:
Major Source Categories
 Commercial Dry Cleaning [Perchloroethylene]--Transfer Machines
 Industrial Dry Cleaning [Perchloroethylene]--Transfer Machines
 Industrial Dry Cleaning [Perchloroethylene]--Dry-to-Dry
Machines
Area Source Categories
 Commercial Dry Cleaning [Perchloroethylene]--Transfer Machines
 Commercial Dry Cleaning [Perchloroethylene]--Dry-to-Dry
Machines

    In general, the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP affects three types of dry
cleaners that use PCE: Commercial, industrial, and co-residential.
Commercial facilities clean household items such as suits, dresses,
coats, pants, comforters, curtains, leather clothing, and formal wear.
Industrial dry cleaners clean heavily stained articles such as work
gloves, uniforms, mechanics' overalls, mops, and shop rags. Co-
residential facilities are usually a subset of commercial operations
and include dry cleaning operations located in buildings in which
people reside. Co-residential facilities are generally found in urban
areas where commercial and residential occupancy occur in a single
building.
    The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP identifies all major sources as
``large'' industrial and commercial dry cleaners. These dry cleaners
are subject to MACT standards under this NESHAP. It is estimated that
there are five or fewer of these major source dry cleaners remaining in
the United States.\1\ The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP requires new major
source PCE dry cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Estimated quantity of major source PCE dry cleaners is based
on details provided to EPA by state regulators, state small business
environmental assistance providers' programs (SBEAP) personnel, and
industry trade association representatives. Refer to the docket for
this proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Operate with a refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber
process controls.
     Use an enhanced leak detection and repair (LDAR) program
to detect PCE leaks from the machines (i.e., PCE gas analyzer operated
according to EPA

Method 21), repair the leaks, and maintain records.
    The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP requires existing major source PCE dry
cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines to:
     Operate with a refrigerated condenser or a carbon adsorber
as process control.
     Use an enhanced LDAR program to detect PCE leaks from the
machines (i.e., PCE gas analyzer operated according to EPA Method 21),
repair the leaks, and maintain records.
    Dry cleaners that are commonly found in community settings (e.g.,
shopping centers and strip malls) are typically ``area sources,''
meaning they emit less than 10 tons of PCE each year, and are smaller
in size in comparison to major source industrial and commercial PCE dry
cleaners. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP standards for these area sources
are GACT standards. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP requires existing area
source PCE dry cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines to:
     Use a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or PCE gas analyzer
monthly to detect PCE leaks, repair the leaks, and maintain records.
    New area source PCE dry cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines
must:
     Operate with a refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber
process controls.
     Use a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or PCE gas analyzer
to detect PCE leaks, repair the leaks, and maintain records.
    The 2006 amendments to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP eliminated the
use of PCE by dry cleaners in co-residential buildings (e.g., a dry
cleaner found on the ground floor of an apartment building). EPA
recognized that because co-residential dry cleaners are located very
close to residences, residents' exposures and their cancer risks could
be much higher than for typical area source dry cleaners. As such, the
PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP includes requirements to eliminate risks
associated with PCE emissions from co-residential dry cleaners. Under
40 CFR 63.322(o)(5)(i), owners/operators were required to eliminate any
PCE emissions from systems located in residential buildings by December
21, 2020. These dry cleaner owner/operators were allowed to replace PCE
machines with newer available non-PCE technology. This sunset date
allowed 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 December 21, 2005.
Additionally, under 40 CFR 63.320(b)(2)(ii) and 63.322(o)(5)(ii), any
PCE dry cleaning machines in co-residential buildings that began
operating between December 21, 2005 and July 13, 2006, were required to
install equipment to aggressively control PCE emissions (i.e.,
refrigerated condensers, carbon adsorbers, and vapor barriers), and to
conduct weekly inspections to detect PCE leaks, repair the leaks, and
maintain records, before eliminating PCE emissions by July 27, 2009.
    Petitions for judicial review of the 2006 amendments to the NESHAP
were filed by the Sierra Club, Halogenated Solvents Industry,
Neighborhood Cleaners Association, International Fabricare Institute,
and Textile Care Allied Trades Association. Sierra Club et al. v.
USEPA, No. 06-1330 (and consolidated cases) (D.C. Cir.). Petitioners
questioned: Whether the EPA reasonably interpreted CAA section
112(d)(6) to allow consideration of risk and costs as factors in
determining the extent to which it was necessary to revise standards
regulating PCE; whether EPA reasonably determined under section
112(d)(6) that it was necessary to revise standards regulating PCE, and
to require elimination of PCE emissions at co-residential systems but
not at other systems; whether the EPA had complied with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA); and whether EPA had reasonably denied a petition
for reconsideration of the rule submitted by the Sierra Club. Although
the case was fully briefed, in 2009 before it could be argued at the
D.C. Circuit, the parties agreed to EPA taking a voluntary remand of
the rule in order for the then-new administration to consider whether
further administrative action was warranted regarding the challenged
issues, while leaving the rule in force. As discussed in section III.A
of this preamble, we are proposing our response to the voluntary remand
as part of this proposal.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?

    For this technology review, the EPA investigated developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies through communications
and direct discussions with state agencies (including regional, state,
and local regulators), Small Business Environmental Assistance Program
(SBEAP) personnel, industry stakeholders, and trade association
representatives. Details of these conversations are included in the
memorandum titled Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP,
December 2021, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).
    We performed a search of the EPA's Technology Transfer Network
(TTN) Clean Air Technology Center--RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC)
database. The RBLC provides several options for searching the permit
database on-line to locate applicable control technologies. We searched
the RBLC database for specific dry cleaning process types (``49.002--
Dry Cleaning, PERC/Chlorinated Solvents'' and ``49.003--Dry Cleaning,
Petroleum Solvents''). In querying results dating back to January 1,
2000, no results were returned when searching for Process Type 49.002
and three results were returned for Process Type 49.003, however none
of the information returned was more recent than 2005 or included any
new or improved control technologies. In addition to searches conducted
using the process type codes above, the RBLC was queried for any
sources with ``cleaning'', ``cleaners'', or ``dry cleaning'' in their
name. The NAICS and SIC codes for dry cleaners, 812320 and 7216,
respectively, were also used to search the RBLC. None of these searches
returned relevant information on new or improved control technologies
used in dry cleaning facilities. Full details of the RBLC database
search in support of this technology review are included in the
memorandum titled Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP,
December 2021, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).
    The EPA also reviewed information and details for facilities that
are subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP using the Agency's
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database. The ECHO
database provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for
approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. Using the
features in the ECHO database, we searched for dry cleaning facilities
by NAICS. The database identified approximately 7,900 facilities.
However, these data are not likely to be comprehensive for the dry
cleaning source category because not all states submit data on smaller
sources to ECHO. Details of the ECHO database search in support of this
technology review are included in the memorandum titled Technology
Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, December 2021, available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    To supplement the information collected from the ECHO search, the
EPA collected information from the EPA's Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) hazardous waste generator databases.
ORCR is responsible for implementation and oversight of the hazardous
waste program required by subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). As part of the hazardous waste program, hazardous
waste generators must report hazardous waste quantities about a
specified threshold, as required by RCRA, subtitle C. Active PCE dry
cleaning facilities were identified in the ORCR hazardous waste
generator databases, based on a search of reported PCE waste
generation, and the NAICS for dry cleaning. Approximately 9,000 active
hazardous waste generators were identified in the database. This list
does not represent the full list of dry cleaning facilities or indicate
the number of facilities subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP. For
many area sources in this source category the amount of PCE waste
generated is below the threshold to notify or report under the RCRA
regulations, therefore, there are potentially area source dry cleaning
facilities that do not generate enough PCE waste to be included in the
hazardous waste generator database. In this technology review, the EPA
assumes that the total number of dry cleaning facilities is higher than
the approximate 9,000 facilities we were able to identify by the RCRA
hazardous waste generator database. A copy of the facility list
developed for this technology review can be found in the docket (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

E. How does the EPA perform the technology review?

    Our technology review primarily focuses on the identification and
evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since the MACT and GACT standards were
promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their
technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-
air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions
associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our
decision of whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions
standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying
controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this
exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
and GACT standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT and GACT standards) that could result in additional
emissions reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT and
GACT standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT and
GACT standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT and GACT
standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
(or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in
our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to
consider. We also review the NESHAP and the available data to determine
if there are any unregulated emissions of HAP within the source
category, and evaluate this data for use in developing new emission
standards. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information
on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the
technology review.

III. Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale

A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?

    This section provides a brief discussion of our review of the
various information sources listed sections II.C and II.D of this
preamble, and our proposed decision pursuant to the CAA section
112(d)(6) technology review to require that all PCE dry-to-dry machines
at existing major and area sources have both refrigerated condensers
and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls. None of the searches of the
RBLC database returned relevant information on new or improved control
technologies related to reducing HAP emissions from dry cleaning
machines used by facilities in the PCE Dry Cleaning source category. To
further identify any developments in practices, processes, and emission
control technologies and strategies, the EPA held several meetings with
state agencies (including state agency representatives and SBEAP
personnel), industry stakeholders and trade association
representatives. The EPA asked several questions pertaining to
developments since the last technology review on July 26, 2006 (71 FR
42724). The responses to this inquiry did not identify any developments
in new or improved control technologies that had not previously been
identified and considered that would warrant revision to the existing
emission standards for the PCE dry cleaning source category.
    Additionally, web search queries for technical literature
pertaining to dry cleaning emissions controls, process controls, and
work practices did not identify any new or improved practices,
processes, or control technologies that were not previously addressed
since the technology review performed in 2006.
    However, there have been developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies that had been identified and considered at the
time of adoption of the original NESHAP and/or of the last technology
review in 2006. These developments reflect a widespread transition away
from some practices that had been allowed to continue for existing
sources but were not permitted for new or reconstructed sources. In
this technology review, for example, the EPA confirmed with industry
representatives that the useful life of a dry-to-dry machine is 15
years. In accordance with the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, PCE dry cleaning
machines installed after 1993 for major sources and 2005 for area
sources would be equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon
adsorbers. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to require all sources
subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, whether new or existing, to be
equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers in order to
reflect this development.
    Refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers have been standard
secondary controls on all new machines for the last 15 years. The
information gathered during the technology review, including details
obtained from PCE dry cleaning industry and trade association
representatives, revealed that dry-to-dry non-vented dry cleaning
machines with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers are the
machines that are overwhelmingly used in PCE dry cleaning operations.
These fourth

generation and newer machines reuse PCE within the machine, which
reduces the PCE emissions from the dry cleaning process. These machines
are much more effective at recovering solvent vapors than machines
equipped with a carbon adsorber or refrigerated condenser alone.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Further details on the evolution of dry cleaning machines
and detailed descriptions of the generations of these machines can
be found in the refer to the Technology Review for the
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Source Category memorandum in the
docket as well as at the following websites: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/hazardcontrol/hc18.html; https://www.enviroforensics.com/blog/the-history-of-dry-cleaning-solvents-and-the-evolution-of-the-dry-cleaning-machine/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been over 25 years since the initial NESHAP was promulgated
in 1993 (58 FR 66287) and 15 years since the last major revisions (71
FR 42724), which required certain machines to be equipped with
refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers. Even though we expect
that almost all currently operating dry cleaning machines have both of
these controls, the EPA has determined that we should preclude any
possible future use of any machines that do not have both controls.
This revision to the standards is necessary to ensure that current
improved PCE emissions control achieved by the widespread use of fourth
generation (or better) machines is maintained and not compromised by
permissible continued operation of earlier generation machines that
have exceeded their useful lives. As such, the EPA is proposing to
require that all PCE dry-to-dry machines at existing major and area
sources have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as
secondary controls. This revision to the standards will ensure that all
dry cleaning systems, both new and existing, will be similarly
controlled.
    Additionally, the EPA re-examined the use of alternative solvents
in use by the dry cleaning industry. This includes the use of non-PCE
containing products such as silica-based solvents and high flash point
hydrocarbon solvents. As part of this assessment, the EPA reviewed the
list of alternative solvents identified in the 2006 PCE Dry Cleaning
NESHAP risk and technology review (RTR) (71 FR 42743), and found that,
for the purposes of the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP MACT or GACT standards,
the list of alternative solvents available to the dry cleaning industry
remains essentially the same. Since our 2006 assessment, there have
been some products that are no longer marketed, and a few products
added to the list. In the 2006 PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP RTR, we looked
at the use of alternative solvents as it relates to a potential ban of
PCE use. In the 2006 RTR, we identified limitations with the
alternative solvents available, when compared to PCE use. These
limitations included a comparison of costs, cleaning ability, ease of
use, applicability to certain fabrics, safety, and others. After
reviewing our assessment made for the 2006 final rule, and the
limitations of the alternative solvents available in 2021, we find no
new information that would change our 2006 assessment for purposes of
the MACT or GACT standards for this industry.
    In response to the voluntary remand of the 2006 rule, we are not
proposing any amendments addressing the objections raised by the
litigants in Sierra Club et al. v. USEPA, No. 06-1330 and consolidated
cases (D.C. Cir.). Since the voluntary remand, EPA has conducted
numerous subsequent RTRs for other NESHAPs and source categories and
has consistently implemented section 112(d)(6) to take into
consideration costs of revising standards and the environmental value
of requiring additional HAP reductions when determining whether it is
necessary to revise standards taking into consideration developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies. We also maintain that
we have the discretion to qualitatively consider as a relevant factor
the benefits of requiring additional HAP emission reductions and their
consequential effect on public health risk under 112(d)(6), as we
considered them in the 2006 RTR. Although we are not further
considering such reductions and their impacts in this current proposed
action because we have not received additional information indicating
such are necessary for CAA purposes related to dry cleaning sources
beyond the review that we conducted in 2006, we stand by the analyses
we conducted and conclusions we reached in the 2006 RTR. Moreover,
subsequent reviewing courts have affirmed EPA's now well-established
approach of considering costs and cost effectiveness in CAA section
112(d)(6) reviews and making judgments about whether to it is necessary
to require additional HAP emissions reductions under CAA section
112(d)(6). See, e.g., National Association for Surface Finishing v.
EPA, 795 F.3d 11-12 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (finding that EPA permissibly
considered costs in revising standards under section 112(d)(6)); see
also, Association of Battery Recyclers, et al. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667,
673-74 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (approving EPA's consideration of cost as a
factor in its section 112(d)(6) decision-making and EPA's reliance on
cost effectiveness as a factor in its standard-setting). In addressing
industry petitioners' challenge to EPA's CAA section 112(d)(6)
determinations, the National Association for Surface Finishing court
explained that ``[r]eductions in emissions are, of course, relevant to
the cost effectiveness of emissions-control technologies in controlling
emissions.'' See 795 F.3d at 12. The court then affirmed that EPA's
conclusions ``that more stringent technology-based standards were cost
effective and otherwise appropriate'' was not arbitrary and capricious.
Id (emphasis added). The EPA thus maintains that our approach in the
2006 RTR to base our decisions to revise the standards as necessary for
dry cleaners located in residential settings, based in part on the
unique public health impacts that the additionally mandated HAP
reductions would mitigate in that particular context, was warranted
under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    Consequently, what may have appeared novel in 2006 to the litigants
in the earliest stages of the EPA's development of the RTR program (the
EPA's consideration of costs and HAP reduction along with the
enumerated factors in CAA section 112(d)(6)) has become settled and
judicially endorsed practice, and it is not necessary for the EPA to
fundamentally re-evaluate that well-established process in this follow-
up technology review or in response to the voluntary remand. Moreover,
since the 2006 RTR, the EPA has not received any information calling
into question the risk-based information that supported our action
requiring elimination of PCE emissions from systems located in
buildings with a residence. Nor has the EPA received additional
information addressing the specific risks presented by PCE emissions to
ambient air from co-commercial PCE dry cleaning systems (e.g., those
located in strip malls with adjacently located other commercial
entities) that suggest that our decision in 2006 to limit the required
elimination of PCE emissions to co-residential settings was
unwarranted. The EPA requests public comments on our response to the
remand, particularly on our proposed determination that no specific
revisions to the standards are necessary in light of the remand.

B. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale
for the proposed compliance dates?

    The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources would comply
with the proposed amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days
after

the effective date of the final rule. The affected existing facilities
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart M, until the applicable compliance date of the amended
rule. As discussed in section III.B of this preamble, the EPA is
proposing to require all dry-to-dry machines at both major and area
sources to have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as
secondary controls. The final action is not expected to be a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, the effective date of
the final rule would be the promulgation date as specified in CAA
section 112(d)(10). From our assessment of the timeframe needed for
compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable. We base this proposed compliance period on several
factors. First, from our discussions with state and local agencies,
trade association representatives, and other stakeholders, the EPA
found that fourth and fifth generation dry-to-dry machines are standard
throughout the industry. Additionally, the EPA confirmed that the
useful life of a dry-to-dry machine is 15 years, and that new dry
cleaning machines sold in the last 20 years are only fourth and fifth
generation machines. Based on these findings, we believe that almost
all of the industry is already in compliance with the proposed
amendments. The 180 days is provided as a courtesy to allow familiarity
with the proposed changes. We solicit comment on this proposed
compliance period, and we specifically request submission of
information from the sources in the major and area source categories
regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply
with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the
adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We
note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed
compliance date.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP prescribes a combination of equipment,
work practices, and operational requirements. The NESHAP allows
regulated sources to determine their major or area source status 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 multiple variables, including number of machines,
size of business, etc. The affected source is each individual dry
cleaning system that uses PCE. Consequently, a single dry cleaning
facility could comprise 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.
    The July 27, 2006, final rule amendments (71 FR 42743) indicate
that at that time, there were approximately 34,000 dry cleaning
facilities in the United States, approximately 28,000 of which used
PCE. Those estimated counts of the number of overall dry cleaners and
PCE dry cleaners are prior to business impacts from the 2008 financial
crisis, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic of 2020-2021, recent shifts
in consumer demands, changes in garment technologies, fashion trends,
dry cleaning machine conversions to alternative solvents, and other
factors that have resulted in reductions in the number of PCE dry
cleaning operations. Based on information provided by dry cleaning
industry stakeholders, including trade organizations, the EPA estimates
that the number of PCE dry cleaners decreased by 20 to 30 percent due
to the 2008 financial crisis, the aforementioned demand trends in the
industry, and increasing replacements of PCE operations with
alternative solvent technologies. Additionally, the EPA estimates that
another 10 to 15 percent of PCE dry cleaners have ceased operation due
to financial impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, the EPA
estimates that there are approximately 10,000 to 15,000 PCE dry
cleaning facilities in the U.S.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA is proposing that all PCE dry-to-dry machines operate with
both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls
(i.e., be fourth or fifth generation machines). The PCE dry cleaning
facilities that are in operation have most likely realized the
reduction in emissions associated with operating both refrigerated
condensers and carbon adsorbers. Additionally, any new machines have
been required to have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers
since the original promulgation of part 63, subpart M, in 1993 (for
major sources) and the 2006 RTR (for area sources); any existing third
generation or older machines at the time of those rules are now beyond
their 15-year expected lifespan. For those facilities who may still be
operating older machines, the proposed amendments of this rulemaking
would reduce emissions by mandating the use of newer machines with the
required controls.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA
expects minimal secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from
this rulemaking.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Any new PCE dry-to-dry machines purchased in the last 20 years for
this source category are closed-loop dry-to-dry machines with a
refrigerated condenser and a carbon adsorber \3\ and thus would not be
impacted by these proposed amendments. The PCE dry cleaning operations
that would be impacted by the proposed amendments would most likely
already have incurred the costs of installing and operating these
fourth-generation machines. Specifically, any older machines (i.e.,
third generation or prior transfer machines or dry-to-dry machines
without refrigerated condenser and a carbon adsorber) would now be
beyond their projected useful life, and we expect that operators would
have already replaced these machines with fourth- and fifth-generation
machines, as part of continued PCE dry cleaning operations. However, we
also recognize that there may be some facilities that are still
operating older PCE machines. We expect that if there are any
facilities operating older machines, they would be area sources. For
reasons previously discussed in section II.C and II.D of this preamble,
the number of older machines in use is unknown. The EPA is soliciting
comment on the number of sources operating older machines and will
reassess the cost and economic impacts if we receive additional data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Phone Conference Communication with Dry Cleaning & Laundry Institute
(DLI) and National Cleaners Association (NCA) representatives. March
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on available information, the EPA concludes that most or all
existing PCE dry cleaning facilities that are subject to the NESHAP
would be able to comply with the proposed requirements without
incurring additional capital or operational costs because they have

purchased newer machines as part of normal business operations. There
may be small number of facilities operating older machines, but we do
not have information on these facilities to determine the full cost
impacts to these entities. We have assessed the costs associated with
reading and understanding the proposed amendments as a total one-time
cost of $108 per facility, using a labor rate for 4 hours of review
time, as described in section IV. D of this preamble. Based on an
estimate of 10,000 to 15,000 facilities that are subject to the PCE Dry
Cleaning NESHAP, the total cost is estimated to be in a range of
$1,080,000 to $1,620,000 nationwide.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output, such as clothes
to be cleaned in the primary markets served by dry cleaners, are
significant enough, impacts on other markets may also be examined. Both
the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a proposed rule and the
distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role
in determining how the market would change in response to a proposed
rule. To estimate the economic impacts of this proposal, the EPA
reviewed the mean hourly wage of $12.29 per hour indicated by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics for laundry and dry cleaning workers in
2021. We then applied a benefits and overhead factor of 1.1 to
calculate a total compensation rate of $26.86 per hour. Additionally,
we estimated 4 hours for a dry cleaning worker to familiarize
themselves with the proposed amendments to the rule, and calculated a
cost of $108 per facility ($23.86/hr x 4 hr/facility = $107.44, or
$108/facility). This is a conservative estimate. We anticipate that
some facilities may not require 4 hours to review the proposed
amendments to the rule. These costs are not expected to result in a
significant impact to primary markets served by dry cleaners.
    We do not anticipate any significant economic impacts from these
proposed amendments to require all dry-to-dry machines to have both
refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls.
This is consistent with our assumptions made in the original rule
development that the useful life of a machine is 15 years. Machines
installed after 1993 for major sources and 2005 for area sources are to
be equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers, in
accordance with the NESHAP. Thus, given the useful life of a typical
dry-cleaning machine, the EPA expects that most or all sources in the
regulated source categories would have discontinued use of third
generation or older machines by 2021.

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as
a result of the proposed amendments, the Agency believes that the
action, if finalized as proposed, would result in improved clarity to
the rule. Specifically, the proposed amendments would revise the
standards such that it is clear that only fourth (or newer) generation
machines can be used in PCE solvent dry cleaning operations. This
requirement is implied in the useful life determination at the
inception of the original NESHAP; however, this proposed amendment
would make this assumption clear and would work to eliminate any older
machines (third generation and prior) that could still be operating.
This action would further protect public health and the environment and
would ultimately result in less potential confusion or
misinterpretation by the regulated community.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of
its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994.) Additionally, Executive Order 13985 was
signed to advance racial equity and support underserved communities
through Federal Government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies'' (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice). In recognizing that minority and low-income
populations often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and
risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of protecting them from
adverse public health and environmental effects of air pollution. To
examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated with
the source categories, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an
assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living
within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. The EPA
then compared the data from this analysis to the national average for
the demographic indicators.
    In the analysis, we evaluated the percentage of minority and low-
income groups within the populations that live near identified PCE dry
cleaning facilities. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP applies to sources
often operating as small facilities, and limited location data for
these small subject facilities were available, adding considerable
uncertainty to the analysis. As described in the technology review
memorandum, available in the docket for this action, and section II.C
of this preamble, we did conduct searches for available information.
The demographic results do not account for emission or risk impacts
from sources and may not be fully representative of the full
distribution of facilities across all locations and populations. This
analysis provides an indication of the potential for disparities in
human health or environmental effects.
    Our analysis includes the general population of dry cleaners across
the country and does not differentiate which facilities are PCE major
and area source dry cleaners. As stated above, our analysis indicates
that sources are likely to operate compliant technologies to meet the
proposed standard. Based upon the number of facilities in this analysis
(9,080 facilities), we find that approximately 48 percent of the U.S.
population lives within 5 km of a facility, and approximately 87
percent live within 50 km of a facility. We find that dry cleaner
facilities are generally located in areas where within the 5 km
distance the category of minority demographics are higher than the
national average, but demographics generally match the national average
within 50 km. We also note that demographics analyses for individual
urban facilities often show that the percentages of various minority
and disadvantaged populations tend to exceed the national averages due
to the urban locations. The results of the demographic analysis for
populations within 5 km of the facilities within the

source category indicate that the percentage of the minority population
(the total population minus the white population) is higher when
compared to the national percentage of people who are minority (an
average of 48 percent versus 40 percent). These comparisons also hold
true for other demographic groups (African American, Other and
Multiracial Groups, and Hispanics), whose populations near dry cleaning
facilities are approximately an average of 3 percent greater the
national average. The demographic group composed of people living in
linguistic isolation was an average of approximately 1 percent greater
than the national average. The percentages of people in all the
remaining demographic groups were below the national average for their
respective demographic. The methodology and the results of the
demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Technology
Review-- Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
the Dry-cleaners for Major and Area Sources, available in this docket
for this action (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

                                Table 1--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Source category
                                                                       -----------------------------------------
                                                        Nationwide       Population within   Population within 5
                                                                           50 km of 9,080        km of 9,080
                                                                             facilities           facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.................................          328,016,242          285,838,206          156,313,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White............................................                   60                   60                   52
Minority.........................................                   40                   40                   48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.................................                   12                   13                   15
Native American..................................                  0.7                  0.5                  0.4
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite).                   19                   18                   22
Other and Multiracial............................                    8                    8                   11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level..............................                   13                   13                   14
Above Poverty Level..............................                   87                   87                   86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma........                   12                   12                   12
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma...........                   88                   88                   88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated..........................                    5                    5                    7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The population numbers and demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019 American
  Community Survey five-year averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different
  averages may differ.
 Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

    This action is not likely to change levels of emissions near
facilities. Based on our technology review, we did not identify, and
are not requiring, any new add-on control technologies, process
equipment, work practices or procedures that were not already in place
when the NESHAP was promulgated in 1993 or considered when the NESHAP
was last reviewed in 2006; and we did not identify other developments
in practices, processes, or control technologies that would result in
additional emission reductions for purposes of these MACT and GACT
standards, beyond the transition to greater use of fourth and fifth
generation machines. Given the useful life of a dry cleaning machine,
and the fact that industry should already be operating the newer
machines with both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as
secondary controls, we do not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as
a result of the proposed amendments.

V. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the analyses. We are specifically interested in
receiving any information regarding the number of third generation and
earlier model dry cleaning machines that potentially could still be
operating, and on other developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies that reduce HAP emissions beyond the widespread
shift to fourth generation (or better) machines.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. The action does not contain any information collection
activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are
industrial and commercial dry cleaning facilities that use PCE. The
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes applicable
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart M, are 812310 (coin-operated laundries and
dry cleaners), 812320 (dry cleaning and laundry services other than
coin-operated services), and 812332 (industrial launderers). The small
business size definitions for those industries are $8.0 million, $6.0
million, and $41.5 million respectively. The costs associated with
reading and understanding the proposed amendments are a one-time cost
of $108 per facility and are not significant. In addition, the useful
life of a PCE dry-to-dry machine is assumed to be 15 years, and the
industry has already purchased fourth or fifth generation dry-to-dry
machines that are in compliance with these amendments as part of normal
operational costs. We have therefore concluded that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action does
not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. While this action creates an enforceable duty on the
private sector, the cost does not exceed $100 million or more.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The action
affects private industry and does not impose economic costs on state or
local governments.

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA consulted with
tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian tribes early in the process of developing this regulation
to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its
development. A summary of that consultation is provided in the docket
for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of
this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facility Source Category Operations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 63 as set forth below:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart M--National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for
Dry Cleaning Facilities

0
2. Section 63.322 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(4); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (o)(2).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.322   Standards.

    (a) Before [date 180 days after date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator of each existing
dry cleaning system and of each new transfer machine system and its
ancillary equipment installed between December 9, 1991, and September
22, 1993, shall comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this
section and shall comply with paragraph (a)(3) of this section if
applicable. On and after [date 180 days after date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator of any
existing dry cleaning system shall comply with paragraph (a)(4) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (4) The owner or operator of each existing dry cleaning system
shall route the air-perchloroethylene (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.
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (2) The owner or operator of each dry cleaning system 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.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.324 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(5) and (6) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.324   Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) The date and monitoring results (temperature sensor or pressure
gauge), as specified in Sec.  63.323, when 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,
when a carbon adsorber is used to comply with Sec.  63.322(a)(2) or
(b)(3).
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.325 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.325   Determination of equivalent emission control technology.

    (a) * * *
    (7) Information on the cross-media impacts (to water and solid
waste) of the candidate emission control technology and demonstration
that the cross-media impacts are less than or equal to the cross-media
impacts of a refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-26469 Filed 12-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 39010-39011]
[DOCID:fr08jy08-58]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Number: 459-224]

Ameren/UE; Notice of Application for Amendment of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

June 27, 2008.
    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands and
waters.
    b. Project Number: 459-224.
    c. Date Filed: June 10, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Ameren/UE.
    e. Name of Project: Osage Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located at the Lakeside at Cross Creek
development near mile markers 30.9+1.5 to 30.9+2 of the Linn Creek Cove
of the Lake of the Ozarks, in Camden County, Missouri.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a), 825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeff Green, Shoreline Supervisor, Ameren/
UE, P.O. Box 993, Lake Ozark, MO 65049,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Christopher Yeakel at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for Filing Comments and/or Motions: July 28, 2008.
    k. Description of Request: Ameren/UE requests approval to permit
VOC Investments, LLC, to construct 20 new multi-slip boat docks at the
Lakeside at Cross Creek development. The docks would have a total of
435 boat slips ranging from 32 feet long and 12 feet wide to 48 feet
long and 16 feet wide and would include central walkways 6 feet wide.
The docks would be available to the residents of the Lakeside at Cross
Creek development. The shoreline is currently undeveloped. No dredging,
fuel dispensing, or sewage pumping facilities are proposed.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (p-459) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (p-459-224). All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-15218 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P