National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities, 39871-39875 [E8-15872]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations (b) Effective Date. This section is effective from July 3, 2008 until July 17, 2008. * * * * * Dated: July 3, 2008. Gail P. Kulisch, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston. [FR Doc. E8–15947 Filed 7–10–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0155; FRL–8691–2] RIN 2060–AO52 National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal; revision. cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA published a direct final rule and parallel proposal on April 1, 2008, to amend revisions to the national perchloroethylene air emission standards for dry cleaning facilities which EPA promulgated on July 27, 2006. Because we received adverse comment during the comment period on the direct final rule and parallel proposal, we are withdrawing the direct final rule and taking final action on the proposed rule to reflect our response to the comments. DATES: This final rule revision is effective July 11, 2008; the withdrawal of the direct final rule published on April 1, 2008, at 73 FR 17252 is effective July 11, 2008. 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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0155, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 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 Docket is (202) 566–1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Warren Johnson, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (E143–03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541–5124, electronic mail address Johnson.warren@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 1, 2008, EPA published a direct final rule and parallel proposal for ‘‘National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning’’ (73 FR 17252). We stated in the direct final rule and parallel proposal that if we received adverse comments by May 16, 2008, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. We received adverse comments on this direct final rule and are withdrawing it. As stated in the direct final rule and parallel proposal, we will not institute a second comment period on this action. Concurrent with the direct final rule, we published a separate notice of proposed rulemaking, to provide for the contingency of adverse comments on the direct final rule (73 FR 17292). We are now issuing a final rule based on the notice of proposed rulemaking and on comments received. 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 9, 2008. 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), any requirements established by the 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 a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ‘‘if the person raising the objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the rule.’’ Any PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 39871 person seeking to make such a demonstration to 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 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 2344–A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. I. What action is EPA taking? In today’s final rule, EPA is adopting the regulatory revisions to 40 CFR 63.320(d) and (e); 63.323(a)(1), (a)(1)(ii), (b) and (c); and 63.324(d)(5) and (6), including some modifications from what we proposed to address the comments received. We received no adverse comments on the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.323(a)(1)’s introductory text, 63.323(a)(1)(ii), or 63.324(d)(5)–(6), and these revisions are being adopted exactly as proposed. Similarly, we received no adverse comments on our proposed amendment to § 63.320(d) adding cross-references to §§ 63.322(o)(3) and 63.322(o)(5)(i), or on our proposed amendment to § 63.320(e) adding a cross-reference to § 63.322(o)(3); consequently, those additions are also being adopted. However, one commenter, the State of Delaware, submitted a comment on the April 1, 2008 direct final rule and parallel proposal objecting to the removal from § 63.320(d) and (e) of cross-references to § 63.322(o)(4), claiming that the removal of these crossreferences would have exempted existing dry-to-dry machine systems from certain requirements intended to prevent the new installation of any perchloroethylene (perc) machine in a building with a residence. Specifically that removal of these cross-references would allow owners and operators of dry cleaning systems installed after December 21, 2005 to relocate old, highemitting dry-to-dry machine systems into residential buildings and significantly increase the residents’ exposure to perc. Delaware recommended that our amendments to § 63.320(d) and (e) be revised to clarify that existing dry-to-dry machine systems ‘‘remain subject to’’ the requirements of § 63.322(o)(4). We agree with the State of Delaware that our clarification would have had the unintended impact of revising requirements in the July 27, 2006 final rule. As we explained in the April 1, 2008 direct final rule (73 FR 17254), we believed that the cross-reference in E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM 11JYR1 cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES 39872 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations § 63.320(d) and (e) to the new source requirements of § 63.322(o)(4) was inadvertent, and we were concerned that some might interpret it to subject small existing sources already located in residential buildings to an immediate prohibition of perc emissions or an early retirement of perc-emitting machines. Rather, under our rules, such small existing systems are subject to the same December 21, 2020, phase-out date that applies to all other existing coresidential systems that are not eligible for the partial exemptions of § 63.320(d) or (e). (73 FR 17254.) However, Delaware’s comments pointed out to us that § 63.322(o)(4) applies not only to mint-new machine systems that are constructed, reconstructed and installed in residential buildings, but also by its terms prohibits ‘‘relocation of a used machine’’ (i.e., new installation of an existing machine). Therefore, we agree with Delaware that it is inappropriate to remove the cross-references for § 63.320(d) and (e). This final rule will continue to include cross-references to § 63.322(o)(4), in order to avoid suggesting that any existing percemitting machines, no matter what size, may be newly installed in residential buildings. As we stated in the July 27, 2006, final rule, the requirement to eliminate perc emissions from dry cleaning systems installed after December 21, 2005, ‘‘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.’’ (71 FR at 42728.) Two commenters submitted objections that relate to our proposal to amend § 63.323(b) and (c) by deleting the July 27, 2006, rule’s cross-references to § 63.322(o)(2). These amendments addressed the rule’s inadvertently promulgated requirement that new area sources conduct specific types of monitoring when carbon adsorbers are used. The first commenter, a private citizen, asserted that some type of performance standard is needed for new ‘‘4th generation’’ dry cleaning machines, and implied that the result of EPA’s proposed amendments is that there would not be one. The State of Delaware submitted similar, but more detailed, comments on this proposed amendment, arguing that by proposing to eliminate monitoring requirements associated with secondary carbon adsorbers located at new area sources, neither owners/operators nor State regulatory agencies will have information necessary to demonstrate that control devices are effective and VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 that dry cleaning machines are being operated consistent with good air pollution control practices. Delaware claimed that eliminating monitoring requirements for these new area sources would increase perc emissions and consequently raise cancer risks, and that the monitoring requirements adopted in the July 27, 2006 rule impose minimal financial burden on dry cleaners. Delaware recommended that EPA therefore not eliminate the crossreference to § 63.322(o)(2), or, if EPA does eliminate it, to replace it with an alternative means to demonstrate compliant operations, such as requiring desorption or carbon replacement in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions or at least weekly (whichever is more stringent), or incorporating a monitoring strategy similar to that found in rules applicable for wetting agents and foam blankets that moves toward progressively less frequent monitoring until breakthrough occurs. As we explained in the direct final rule, the July 27, 2006, rule’s application of the § 63.323(b) and (c) monitoring requirements for new area sources subject to § 63.322(o)(2) was due to our failure to correct cross-references in the final rule when the proposed requirements for new area sources moved from § 63.322(o)(3) into § 63.322(o)(2). (73 FR 17253–54.) It was not our intention to impose these obligations on new area sources, nor had we proposed to impose them. (73 FR 17253–54.) We continue to believe that, as a result, the July 27, 2006, rule’s promulgation of those requirements, merely by the erroneous crossreferences to § 63.322(o)(2) in § 63.323(b) and (c), is not justified, and that the cross-references must be removed for that reason. Furthermore, we disagree with the assertions that removing the crossreference to § 63.322(o)(2) from § 63.323(b) and (c) results in there being no performance standard for machines subject to the new area source requirements. By its terms, § 63.322(o)(2) requires such area sources to route the air-perc gas-vapor stream contained within each dry cleaning machine through a refrigerated condenser and to pass the stream from inside the machine drum through a nonvented carbon adsorber or equivalent control device immediately before the door of the machine is opened. The carbon adsorber must be desorbed in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions. We continue to believe that this is sufficient to ensure that new area source owners and operators conduct the work practices required by the rule PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 in § 63.322(o)(2). Therefore, today’s final rule adopts the proposed amendments to § 63.323(b) and (c) that remove the cross-references to § 63.322(o)(2). One other commenter raised issues that were not the subject of the April 1, 2008, direct final rule. Specifically, the St. Louis County Air Pollution Control Program, while not intending to adversely affect the rulemaking, asked (along with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources) for an additional clarification that the temperature difference monitoring requirements found in § 63.323(a)(2), which were addressed neither by the July 27, 2006, final rule nor by the April 1, 2008, direct final rule, were intended to apply only to transfer units. While neither the April 1, 2008, direct final rule nor the July 2006 rule revisions to the 1993 rule addressed section 63.323(a)(2), we did erroneously reference § 63.323(a)(2)(ii) in the preamble to the April 1, 2008, direct final rule in stating: ‘‘In addition, due to the July 27, 2006, revisions to 40 CFR 63.323(a), one could interpret that using the monitoring method in 40 CFR 63.323(a)(2)(ii) is only an option when the dry cleaning machine is not equipped with refrigeration system pressure gauges.’’ (73 FR at 17254.) Therefore, we would like to clarify for the St. Louis County Air Pollution Control Program that the reference to 40 CFR 63.323(a)(2)(ii) should have been a reference to 40 CFR 63.323(a)(1)(ii) which was the subject of the direct final rulemaking. II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This final action does not impose any new information collection burden. Certain technical and editorial corrections that EPA is making to the National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities imposes no new burdens. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 63, subpart M under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060– 0234. The OMB control numbers for E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM 11JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since the amendments in this final rule are simply making technical corrections and clarifications to the existing rule requirements, this final rule will not impose any new requirements on small entities 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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly, most cost effective, or leastburdensome 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. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. These final rule amendments clarify certain provisions and correct typographical errors in the rule text for a rule EPA determined not to include a Federal mandate that may result in an estimated cost of $100 million or more (69 FR 5061, February 3, 2004). These clarifications do not change the level or cost of the standard. In addition, EPA has determined that this final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because the burden is small and the regulation does not apply to small governments. Therefore, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order (EO) 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the EO to include regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ This 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 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 39873 responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in EO 13132. The amendments provide clarification and correct typographical errors. These changes do not modify existing or create new responsibilities among EPA Regional Offices, States, or local enforcement agencies. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order (EO) 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.’’ This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO 13175. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in EO 13175. Thus, EO 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects This final rule is not subject to Executive Order (EO) 13211, ‘‘Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under EO 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM 11JYR1 39874 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. No new standard requirements are specified in this final rule. Therefore, the EPA is not adopting any voluntary consensus standards in the final rule. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES K. 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. EPA will submit a report containing this final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective July 11, 2008. 14:58 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 7, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: I PART 63—[AMENDED] Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. These final rule amendments do not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not cause emissions increases from these sources. VerDate Aug<31>2005 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart M—[Amended] 2. Section 63.320 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: I § 63.320 Applicability. * * * * * (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 §§ 63.322, 63.323, and 63.324, except §§ 63.322(c), (d), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (o)(1), (o)(3), (o)(4) and (o)(5)(i); 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 § 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 §§ 63.322, 63.323, and 63.324, except §§ 63.322(c), (d), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (o)(1), (o)(3) 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. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Consumption is determined according to § 63.323(d). * * * * * I 3. Section 63.323 is amended as follows: I a. By revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(1)(ii). I b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text. I c. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text. § 63.323 Test methods and monitoring. (a) * * * (1) The owner or operator shall monitor on a weekly basis the parameters in either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. * * * * * (ii) The temperature of the airperchloroethylene 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 °C (45 °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 °C (45 °F) to an accuracy of ±1.1 °C (±2 °F). * * * * * (b) When a carbon adsorber is used to comply with § 63.322(a)(2) or exhaust is passed through a carbon adsorber immediately upon machine door opening to comply with § 63.322(b)(3), 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: * * * * * (c) If the air-PCE gas vapor stream is passed through a carbon adsorber prior to machine door opening to comply with § 63.322(b)(3), 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: * * * * * E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM 11JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION comments received, go to https:// www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W–12–140, West Building Ground Floor at the DOT’s new headquarters at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Winkle, Transportation Industry Analyst, Office of Railroad Development, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Mail Stop 13, Washington, DC 20590 (John.Winkle@dot.gov or 202– 493–6067); or Elizabeth A. Sorrells, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (Betty.Sorrells@dot.gov or 202–493–6057). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Railroad Administration I. Background 4. Section 63.324 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(5) and (d)(6) to read as follows: I § 63.324 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. * * * * * (d) * * * (5) The date and monitoring results (temperature sensor or pressure gauge) as specified in § 63.323 if a refrigerated condenser is used to comply with § 63.322(a), (b), or (o); and (6) The date and monitoring results, as specified in § 63.323, if a carbon adsorber is used to comply with § 63.322(a)(2), or (b)(3). * * * * * [FR Doc. E8–15872 Filed 7–10–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 49 CFR Part 262 [Docket No. FRA 2005–23774, Notice No. 2] RIN 2130–AB74 Implementation of Program for Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Projects Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: Section 9002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59, August 10, 2005) amends chapter 201 of Title 49 of the United States Code by adding section 20154. Section 20154 authorizes—but does not appropriate— $350,000,000 per year for each of the fiscal years (FY) 2006 through 2009 for the purpose of funding a grant program to provide financial assistance for local rail line relocation and improvement projects. Section 20154 directs the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to issue regulations implementing this grant program, and the Secretary has delegated this responsibility to FRA. This final rule establishes a regulation intended to carry out that statutory mandate. As of the publication of this final rule, Congress did not appropriate any funding for the program for FY 2006 or FY 2007 but did appropriate $20,040,200 for fiscal year 2008. DATES: August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 A. Statutory Authority On January 17, 2007, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to add part 262 to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. Part 262 would carry out the statutory mandate of section 9002 of SAFETEA– LU which amends chapter 201 of Title 49 of the United States Code by adding a new section 20154. Section 20154 authorizes—but does not appropriate— $350,000,000 per year for each of the fiscal years (FY) 2006 through 2009 for the purpose of funding a grant program to provide financial assistance for local rail line relocation and improvement projects. The statute requires the Secretary to implement the grant program through regulations. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility to FRA. The language and provisions of Part 262 as reflected in the NPRM and this final rule closely track the language set out in section 20154. B. Program Purpose As noted in the background section of the NPRM, state and local governments are looking for ways to eliminate the problems created by the presence of railroad infrastructure in many communities, infrastructure that at one time was critical to the development of the community but which now presents problems as well as benefits. Problems that have been identified range from community separation to blocked grade crossings to limits on economic development. Many times, the solution is to relocate or raise track vertically or move the track to an area that is better suited for it. In addition to relocation projects, many communities are eager to PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 39875 improve existing rail infrastructure in an effort to mitigate the perceived negative effects of rail traffic on safety in general, motor vehicle traffic flow, economic development, or the overall quality of life of the community. II. SAFETEA–LU On August 10, 2005, President George W. Bush signed SAFETEA–LU, (Pub. L. 109–59) into law. Section 9002 of SAFETEA–LU amended chapter 201 of Title 49 of the United States Code by adding a new § 20154, which establishes the basic elements of a funding program for capital grants for local rail line relocation and improvement projects. Subsection (b) of the new § 20154 mandates that the Secretary issue ‘‘temporary regulations’’ to implement the capital grants program and then issue final regulations by October 1, 2006. This final rule carries out that statutory mandate. In order to be eligible for a grant for a relocation or improvement construction project, the project must mitigate the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety, motor vehicle traffic flow, community quality of life, including noise mitigation, or economic development, or involve a lateral or vertical relocation of any portion of the rail line, presumably to reduce the number of grade crossings and/or serve to mitigate noise, visual issues, or other externality that negatively impacts a community. A more detailed explanation of the rule text is provided below in the Section-by-Section Analysis. In section 20154, Congress authorized, but did not appropriate, $350 million per year for each fiscal year 2006 through 2009. At least half of the funds awarded under this program shall be provided as grant awards of not more than $20 million each. A State or other eligible entity will be required to pay at least 10 percent of the shared costs of the project, whether in the form of a contribution of real property or tangible personal property, contribution of employee services, or previous costs spent on the project before the application was filed. The State or FRA may also seek financial contributions from private entities benefiting from the rail line relocation or improvement project. In section 20154, Congress directed FRA to issue ‘‘temporary regulations’’ by April 1, 2006. As noted in the NPRM, under the Administrative Procedure Act and Executive Orders governing rulemaking, FRA could comply with Congress’s deadline only by issuing a direct final rule or an interim final rule by April 1, 2006. However, the FRA E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM 11JYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 134 (Friday, July 11, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39871-39875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15872]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155; FRL-8691-2]
RIN 2060-AO52


National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry 
Cleaning Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal; revision.

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

SUMMARY: EPA published a direct final rule and parallel proposal on 
April 1, 2008, to amend revisions to the national perchloroethylene air 
emission standards for dry cleaning facilities which EPA promulgated on 
July 27, 2006. Because we received adverse comment during the comment 
period on the direct final rule and parallel proposal, we are 
withdrawing the direct final rule and taking final action on the 
proposed rule to reflect our response to the comments.

DATES: This final rule revision is effective July 11, 2008; the 
withdrawal of the direct final rule published on April 1, 2008, at 73 
FR 17252 is effective July 11, 2008.

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 
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Warren Johnson, Sector Policies 
and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(E143-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5124, electronic mail address 
Johnson.warren@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 1, 2008, EPA published a direct 
final rule and parallel proposal for ``National Perchloroethylene Air 
Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning'' (73 FR 17252). We stated in the 
direct final rule and parallel proposal that if we received adverse 
comments by May 16, 2008, the direct final rule would not take effect 
and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. We 
received adverse comments on this direct final rule and are withdrawing 
it. As stated in the direct final rule and parallel proposal, we will 
not institute a second comment period on this action.
    Concurrent with the direct final rule, we published a separate 
notice of proposed rulemaking, to provide for the contingency of 
adverse comments on the direct final rule (73 FR 17292). We are now 
issuing a final rule based on the notice of proposed rulemaking and on 
comments received.
    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 9, 2008. 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), any 
requirements established by the 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 a mechanism for 
EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``if the person 
raising the objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public 
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period 
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) 
and if such objection is of central relevance to the rule.'' Any person 
seeking to make such a demonstration to 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 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 2344-A), 
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.

I. What action is EPA taking?

    In today's final rule, EPA is adopting the regulatory revisions to 
40 CFR 63.320(d) and (e); 63.323(a)(1), (a)(1)(ii), (b) and (c); and 
63.324(d)(5) and (6), including some modifications from what we 
proposed to address the comments received. We received no adverse 
comments on the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.323(a)(1)'s 
introductory text, 63.323(a)(1)(ii), or 63.324(d)(5)-(6), and these 
revisions are being adopted exactly as proposed. Similarly, we received 
no adverse comments on our proposed amendment to Sec.  63.320(d) adding 
cross-references to Sec. Sec.  63.322(o)(3) and 63.322(o)(5)(i), or on 
our proposed amendment to Sec.  63.320(e) adding a cross-reference to 
Sec.  63.322(o)(3); consequently, those additions are also being 
adopted.
    However, one commenter, the State of Delaware, submitted a comment 
on the April 1, 2008 direct final rule and parallel proposal objecting 
to the removal from Sec.  63.320(d) and (e) of cross-references to 
Sec.  63.322(o)(4), claiming that the removal of these cross-references 
would have exempted existing dry-to-dry machine systems from certain 
requirements intended to prevent the new installation of any 
perchloroethylene (perc) machine in a building with a residence. 
Specifically that removal of these cross-references would allow owners 
and operators of dry cleaning systems installed after December 21, 2005 
to relocate old, high-emitting dry-to-dry machine systems into 
residential buildings and significantly increase the residents' 
exposure to perc. Delaware recommended that our amendments to Sec.  
63.320(d) and (e) be revised to clarify that existing dry-to-dry 
machine systems ``remain subject to'' the requirements of Sec.  
63.322(o)(4).
    We agree with the State of Delaware that our clarification would 
have had the unintended impact of revising requirements in the July 27, 
2006 final rule. As we explained in the April 1, 2008 direct final rule 
(73 FR 17254), we believed that the cross-reference in

[[Page 39872]]

Sec.  63.320(d) and (e) to the new source requirements of Sec.  
63.322(o)(4) was inadvertent, and we were concerned that some might 
interpret it to subject small existing sources already located in 
residential buildings to an immediate prohibition of perc emissions or 
an early retirement of perc-emitting machines. Rather, under our rules, 
such small existing systems are subject to the same December 21, 2020, 
phase-out date that applies to all other existing co-residential 
systems that are not eligible for the partial exemptions of Sec.  
63.320(d) or (e). (73 FR 17254.)
    However, Delaware's comments pointed out to us that Sec.  
63.322(o)(4) applies not only to mint-new machine systems that are 
constructed, re-constructed and installed in residential buildings, but 
also by its terms prohibits ``relocation of a used machine'' (i.e., new 
installation of an existing machine). Therefore, we agree with Delaware 
that it is inappropriate to remove the cross-references for Sec.  
63.320(d) and (e). This final rule will continue to include cross-
references to Sec.  63.322(o)(4), in order to avoid suggesting that any 
existing perc-emitting machines, no matter what size, may be newly 
installed in residential buildings. As we stated in the July 27, 2006, 
final rule, the requirement to eliminate perc emissions from dry 
cleaning systems installed after December 21, 2005, ``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.'' (71 
FR at 42728.)
    Two commenters submitted objections that relate to our proposal to 
amend Sec.  63.323(b) and (c) by deleting the July 27, 2006, rule's 
cross-references to Sec.  63.322(o)(2). These amendments addressed the 
rule's inadvertently promulgated requirement that new area sources 
conduct specific types of monitoring when carbon adsorbers are used. 
The first commenter, a private citizen, asserted that some type of 
performance standard is needed for new ``4th generation'' dry cleaning 
machines, and implied that the result of EPA's proposed amendments is 
that there would not be one. The State of Delaware submitted similar, 
but more detailed, comments on this proposed amendment, arguing that by 
proposing to eliminate monitoring requirements associated with 
secondary carbon adsorbers located at new area sources, neither owners/
operators nor State regulatory agencies will have information necessary 
to demonstrate that control devices are effective and that dry cleaning 
machines are being operated consistent with good air pollution control 
practices. Delaware claimed that eliminating monitoring requirements 
for these new area sources would increase perc emissions and 
consequently raise cancer risks, and that the monitoring requirements 
adopted in the July 27, 2006 rule impose minimal financial burden on 
dry cleaners. Delaware recommended that EPA therefore not eliminate the 
cross-reference to Sec.  63.322(o)(2), or, if EPA does eliminate it, to 
replace it with an alternative means to demonstrate compliant 
operations, such as requiring desorption or carbon replacement in 
accordance with manufacturers' instructions or at least weekly 
(whichever is more stringent), or incorporating a monitoring strategy 
similar to that found in rules applicable for wetting agents and foam 
blankets that moves toward progressively less frequent monitoring until 
breakthrough occurs.
    As we explained in the direct final rule, the July 27, 2006, rule's 
application of the Sec.  63.323(b) and (c) monitoring requirements for 
new area sources subject to Sec.  63.322(o)(2) was due to our failure 
to correct cross-references in the final rule when the proposed 
requirements for new area sources moved from Sec.  63.322(o)(3) into 
Sec.  63.322(o)(2). (73 FR 17253-54.) It was not our intention to 
impose these obligations on new area sources, nor had we proposed to 
impose them. (73 FR 17253-54.) We continue to believe that, as a 
result, the July 27, 2006, rule's promulgation of those requirements, 
merely by the erroneous cross-references to Sec.  63.322(o)(2) in Sec.  
63.323(b) and (c), is not justified, and that the cross-references must 
be removed for that reason.
    Furthermore, we disagree with the assertions that removing the 
cross-reference to Sec.  63.322(o)(2) from Sec.  63.323(b) and (c) 
results in there being no performance standard for machines subject to 
the new area source requirements. By its terms, Sec.  63.322(o)(2) 
requires such area sources to route the air-perc gas-vapor stream 
contained within each dry cleaning machine through a refrigerated 
condenser and to pass the stream from inside the machine drum through a 
non-vented carbon adsorber or equivalent control device immediately 
before the door of the machine is opened. The carbon adsorber must be 
desorbed in accordance with manufacturers' instructions. We continue to 
believe that this is sufficient to ensure that new area source owners 
and operators conduct the work practices required by the rule in Sec.  
63.322(o)(2). Therefore, today's final rule adopts the proposed 
amendments to Sec.  63.323(b) and (c) that remove the cross-references 
to Sec.  63.322(o)(2).
    One other commenter raised issues that were not the subject of the 
April 1, 2008, direct final rule. Specifically, the St. Louis County 
Air Pollution Control Program, while not intending to adversely affect 
the rulemaking, asked (along with the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources) for an additional clarification that the temperature 
difference monitoring requirements found in Sec.  63.323(a)(2), which 
were addressed neither by the July 27, 2006, final rule nor by the 
April 1, 2008, direct final rule, were intended to apply only to 
transfer units.
    While neither the April 1, 2008, direct final rule nor the July 
2006 rule revisions to the 1993 rule addressed section 63.323(a)(2), we 
did erroneously reference Sec.  63.323(a)(2)(ii) in the preamble to the 
April 1, 2008, direct final rule in stating: ``In addition, due to the 
July 27, 2006, revisions to 40 CFR 63.323(a), one could interpret that 
using the monitoring method in 40 CFR 63.323(a)(2)(ii) is only an 
option when the dry cleaning machine is not equipped with refrigeration 
system pressure gauges.'' (73 FR at 17254.) Therefore, we would like to 
clarify for the St. Louis County Air Pollution Control Program that the 
reference to 40 CFR 63.323(a)(2)(ii) should have been a reference to 40 
CFR 63.323(a)(1)(ii) which was the subject of the direct final 
rulemaking.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final action does not impose any new information collection 
burden. Certain technical and editorial corrections that EPA is making 
to the National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry 
Cleaning Facilities imposes no new burdens. However, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information 
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart M under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0234. 
The OMB control numbers for

[[Page 39873]]

EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since the 
amendments in this final rule are simply making technical corrections 
and clarifications to the existing rule requirements, this final rule 
will not impose any new requirements on small entities

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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows the 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.
    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. These final rule amendments clarify 
certain provisions and correct typographical errors in the rule text 
for a rule EPA determined not to include a Federal mandate that may 
result in an estimated cost of $100 million or more (69 FR 5061, 
February 3, 2004). These clarifications do not change the level or cost 
of the standard.
    In addition, EPA has determined that this final rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments because the burden is small and the regulation does 
not apply to small governments. Therefore, this final rule is not 
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order (EO) 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires 
the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and 
timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies 
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the EO to include 
regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.''
    This 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 EO 13132. The amendments provide clarification and 
correct typographical errors. These changes do not modify existing or 
create new responsibilities among EPA Regional Offices, States, or 
local enforcement agencies. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this final rule.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 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.'' This final rule does not have tribal 
implications, as specified in EO 13175. This rule will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in EO 13175. Thus, EO 13175 
does not apply to this rule.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject 
to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard 
intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order (EO) 13211, 
``Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant 
regulatory action under EO 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,

[[Page 39874]]

sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    No new standard requirements are specified in this final rule. 
Therefore, the EPA is not adopting any voluntary consensus standards in 
the final rule.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. These final rule amendments do not relax the control 
measures on sources regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not 
cause emissions increases from these sources.

K. 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. EPA will submit a report containing this final rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective July 11, 2008.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 7, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out 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 by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.320  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (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), (o)(3), (o)(4) and (o)(5)(i); 
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), (o)(3) 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 63.323 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(1)(ii).
0
b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text.
0
c. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text.


Sec.  63.323  Test methods and monitoring.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator shall monitor on a weekly basis the 
parameters in either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) 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), 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:
* * * * *
    (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), 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:
* * * * *

[[Page 39875]]


0
4. Section 63.324 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(5) and (d)(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 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), or 
(b)(3).
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-15872 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P