National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities Technology Review, 73207-73219 [2021-26469]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73207-73219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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.

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

[[Page 73208]]

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: (202) 566-9744. 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: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 
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 (888) 372-8699 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 (888) 372-8699 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

[[Page 73209]]

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

[[Page 73210]]

    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)

[[Page 73211]]

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

[[Page 73212]]

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).

[[Page 73213]]

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

[[Page 73214]]

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

[[Page 73215]]

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

[[Page 73216]]

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

[[Page 73217]]

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.

[[Page 73218]]

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

[[Page 73219]]

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