Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19887

Dated: April 25, 1996.

Michael K. Robinson,

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 96–11023 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL–5468–1]

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: Perchloroethylene Dry

Cleaning Facilities; Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed amendments to rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes

amendments to the national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP) for perchloroethylene (PCE)

dry cleaning facilities promulgated in

the Federal Register on September 22,

1993. The NESHAP was promulgated to

minimize emissions of PCE, which has

been listed by EPA as a hazardous air

pollutant (HAP). The Administrator is

proposing to implement a settlement

agreement that the EPA has entered into

regarding a small number of transfer

machines.

DATES: Comments. Comments on the

proposed amendments must be received

by June 17, 1996.

Public Hearing. Persons requesting a

public hearing should contact Mr.

George Smith at (919) 541–1549 by May

15, 1996. If anyone requests a public

hearing by May 15, 1996, a public

hearing will be held in Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons

wishing to make oral statements at this

public hearing must contact Mr. Smith

by May 15, 1996 at (919) 541–1549,

Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA,

MD–13, Research Triangle Park, NC

27711. Persons interested in attending

the public hearing should also contact

Mr. Smith for information on the exact

location of the public hearing, if one is

requested.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on

the proposed amendments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:

The Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460,

attention Docket Number A–95–16.

Docket. Docket Number A–95–16,

containing supporting information used

in developing the proposed

amendments, is available for public

inspection and copying between the

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday (except for

government holidays) at The Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

George Smith at (919) 541–1549,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated

entities. Entities regulated by this action

are dry cleaning facilities that use

perchloroethylene. Regulated categories

and entities include:

Category Examples of regulated

entities

Perchloroethylene

dry cleaning facilities.

Perchloroethylene dry

cleaning facilities that

installed transfer machines between proposal and promulgation.

The above table is an exhaustive

guide for readers regarding entities to be

regulated by this action.

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background, Summary, and

Rationale for Rule Changes

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

C. Unfunded Mandates Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

I. Background, Summary, and

Rationale for Rule Changes

National emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for

perchloroethylene (PCE) dry cleaning

facilities were promulgated on

September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49354), and

amended on December 20, 1993 (58 FR

66287), as 40 CFR Part 63, subpart M.

On December 20, 1993, the International

Fabricare Institute (IFI), a trade

association representing commercial

and industrial dry cleaners nationwide,

submitted a statement of issues to the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit challenging the

NESHAP. The Agency subsequently

entered into a settlement agreement

with IFI, notice of which was published

prior to being lodged with the court (60

FR 52000, October 4, 1995).

International Fabricare Institute raised

the issue of new transfer machines

purchased or installed between proposal

and promulgation. The IFI’s concern

stems from the fact that the Agency did

not propose to ban new transfer

machines, yet at promulgation did ban

such machines. The IFI argued that dry

cleaners who installed new transfer

machines between proposal and

promulgation did so with the

understanding that the Agency had not

proposed any prohibitions against this.

These dry cleaners now have no

recourse but to scrap these new transfer

machines and replace them with new

dry-to-dry machines in order to comply

with the NESHAP. The IFI asserted that

this is unfair, given these dry cleaners

acted in accordance with the law to the

best of their knowledge at the time.

At the time of proposal, the Agency

believed that no new transfer machines

were being sold or installed, and for this

reason did not propose to ban purchase

of new transfer machines. However, due

to new information that the Agency

received after proposal that is explained

in the preamble to the final rule, the

Agency banned the purchase of new

transfer machines. The ban was

considered reasonable because the

Agency’s analysis showed that

emissions from clothing transfer could

be eliminated by requiring dry-to-dry

machines in their place. Emissions from

clothing transfer account for about 25

percent of transfer machine emissions.

The Agency’s analysis also showed that

in the typical case where a new dry-todry machine was installed instead of a

new transfer machine, a net savings of

$300 per ton of emission reductions

would be realized by the dry cleaner.

Hence, the Agency decided at

promulgation to effectively ‘‘ban’’ new

transfer machines from being

introduced subsequent to promulgation,

by making the emission limit for new

transfer machines impossible to achieve.

It was believed this decision would

have no impact on dry cleaners, since

no new transfer machines were being

purchased or installed. It was only after

promulgation that it became apparent

that a few new transfer machines had

been sold and installed between

proposal and promulgation of the

NESHAP.

The Agency agrees with IFI on this

issue. Consequently, the Administrator

proposes to subcategorize new transfer

machines into two types: new transfer

machines installed after promulgation

(i.e., September 22, 1993) and new

transfer machines installed between

proposal (i.e., December 9, 1991) and

promulgation (i.e., September 22, 1993).

The requirements the Administrator is

proposing today for new transfer

machines installed after promulgation
19888 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

do not change from what they are in the

NESHAP—under no circumstances are

new transfer machines installed after

promulgation allowed to operate. The

requirements the Administrator is

proposing today for the new

subcategory, new transfer machines

installed between proposal and

promulgation, are similar to those for

existing transfer machines.

Creation of the subcategory would

recognize differences in the

technologies used at new sources and

the achievability of the emissions limit

by these technologies. As noted, at the

time it set the emissions limit, the

Agency failed to recognize that some

owners and operators had installed

transfer machines after the proposal.

Transfer machine technology is

fundamentally different than dry-to-dry

technology. In order to stay in business,

an owner or operator that had installed

new transfer machines after proposal

would have to purchase both a transfer

machine system and a dry-to-dry system

in time period between December 9,

1991 (proposal) and September 22, 1996

(final rule compliance date), while an

owner and operator of a new source

built after promulgation would only

have to purchase one dry-to-dry system.

The investment required for parties that

had installed transfer machines would

not be achievable for these parties,

which are mostly small businesses. The

proposal would not sacrifice significant

emissions reductions because the

number of affected machines is

approximately one-tenth of one percent

of all dry-cleaning machines. Today’s

proposal would allow for the greatest

achievable emissions reductions by both

those who had installed transfer

machines prior to issuance of the final

rule and all other new sources and

would maintain the prospective

prohibition on new transfer machines.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements of the previously

promulgated NESHAP for PCE Dry

Cleaning Facilities were submitted to

and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget. A copy of this

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document (OMB control number 2060–

0234) may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, Information Policy Branch

(PM–223Y); U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW;

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260–2740. Today’s changes to the

NESHAP for PCE Dry Cleaning Facilities

do not affect the information collection

burden estimates made previously.

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR

51735, (October 4, 1993)], the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

1. Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

2. Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

3. Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or land programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

This rule was classified ‘‘nonsignificant’’ under Executive Order

12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget.

C. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a statement to accompany any

proposed rule where the estimated costs

to State, local, or tribal governments, or

to the private sector, will be $100

million or more in any one year. Under

Section 205, EPA must select the most

cost-effective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objective of

the rule and is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly impacted by the

rule. The unfunded mandates statement

under Section 202 must include: (1) a

citation of the statutory authority under

which the rule is proposed, (2) an

assessment of the costs and benefits of

the rule, including the effect of the

mandate on health, safety, and the

environment, and the federal resources

available to defray the costs, (3) where

feasible, estimates of future compliance

costs and disproportionate impacts

upon particular geographic or social

segments of the nation or industry, (4)

where relevant, an estimate of the effect

on the national economy, and (5) a

description of EPA’s prior consultation

with State, local, and tribal officials.

The amendments to the NESHAP that

the Administrator is proposing today

will not cause State, local, or tribal

governments, or the private sector to

incur costs that will be $100 million or

more in any one year. Rather, the costs

involved in this rulemaking are

relatively insignificant in comparison to

the $100 million threshold of the

Unfunded Mandates Act. Therefore, the

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates

Act are not applicable to this

rulemaking.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires the identification of potentially

adverse impacts of federal regulations

upon small business entities. The Act

specifically requires the completion of a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those

instances where small business impacts

are possible. Because this rulemaking

imposes no adverse economic impacts,

a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not

been prepared.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

business entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Title 40, chapter I, part 63, of the

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

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

2. Section 63.320 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f)

to read as follows:

§ 63.320 Applicability.

* * * * *

(c) Each dry cleaning system that

commenced construction or

reconstruction before December 9, 1991

and each new transfer machine system
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19889

and its ancillary equipment that

commenced construction or

reconstruction on or after December 9,

1991 and before September 22, 1993

shall comply with §§ 63.322 (c), (d), (i),

(j), (k), (l), and (m), 63.323(d), and

63.324 (a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3),

(d)(4), and (e) beginning on December

20, 1993 and shall comply with other

provisions of this subpart by September

23, 1996.

(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 paragraphs 63.322 (c),

(d), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m), 63.323(d),

and 63.324 (a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3),

(d)(4), and (e) if the total

perchloroethylene 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 paragraphs 63.322 (c), (d), (i), (j),

(k), (l), and (m), 63.323(d), and 63.324

(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), and

(e) if the perchloroethylene

consumption of the dry cleaning facility

is less than 760 liters (200 gallons) per

year. Consumption is determined

according to § 63.323(d).

(f) If the total yearly

perchloroethylene consumption of a dry

cleaning facility determined according

to § 63.323(d) is initially less than the

amounts specified in paragraph (d) or

(e) of this section, but later exceeds

those amounts, the existing dry cleaning

system(s) and new transfer machine

system(s) and its (their) ancillary

equipment installed between December

9, 1991 and September 22, 1993 in the

dry cleaning facility must comply with

§ 63.322, § 63.323, and § 63.324 by 180

calendar days from the date that the

facility determines it has exceeded the

amounts specified, or by September 23,

1996, whichever is later.

* * * * *

3. Section 63.322 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) introductory text

and (b) introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 63.322 Standards.

(a) 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 (a)(1) or

(a)(2) of this paragraph and shall comply

with (a)(3) of this paragraph if

applicable.

* * * * *

(b) The owner or operator of each new

dry-to-dry machine and its ancillary

equipment and of each new transfer

machine system and its ancillary

equipment installed after September 22,

1993:

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–11079 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP–250101B; FRL–5366–2]

Exceptions to Worker Protection

Standard Early Entry Restrictions;

Limited Contact Activities; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Correction.

SUMMARY: EPA issued a document in the

Federal Register that proposed a rule

change allowing early entry into

pesticide-treated areas. In that proposal,

EPA indicated that methyl parathion

requires both oral and written

notification (‘‘double notification’’) of

agricultural workers when it is applied.

Methyl parathion was mentioned

incorrectly, as the Agency had

previously determined that its acute

dermal toxicity is Toxicity Category II,

which does not require double

notification. Moreover, a study of

methyl parathion’s potential for acute

dermal irritation demonstrated that it is

Toxicity Category IV and that it is not

a skin sensitizer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joshua First, Office of Pesticide

Programs (7506C), Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location,

telephone number, and e-mail address:

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal

Mall #2, Rm. 1121, Arlington, VA, 703-

305-7437, e-mail:

first.joshua.@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of January 11, 1995 (60

FR 2842) (FRL-4930-4), EPA issued a

proposed rule to change allowing early

entry into pesticide-treated areas under

certain conditions (the proposal was

subsequently finalized on May 3, 1995

(60 FR 21955) (FRL-4950-4). In the

January 11th proposal, EPA described

some pesticides whose labeling requires

‘‘double notification’’ when those

pesticides are applied. The ‘‘double

notification’’ requirement is set by the

Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR

part 170). EPA is hereby stating that its

previous indication that methyl

parathion requires ‘‘double notification’’

was incorrect. Methyl parathion does

not require ‘‘double notification.’’

Lists of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Labeling, Occupational safety and

health, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

Daniel M. Barolo,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 96–11074 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5465–5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance

Pollution Contingency Plan; National

Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete

Whiteford Sales & Service Superfund

Site South Bend, Indiana.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region 5 announces its

intent to delete the Whiteford Sales &

Service, Inc. (WSS) site from the

National Priorities List (NPL) and

requests public comment on this

proposed action. As specified in

Appendix B of CFR part 300 which is

the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), it has been

determined that all appropriate Fundfinanced responses at the site under

CERCLA have been implemented. EPA,

in consultation with the State of

Indiana, has determined that the WSS

site poses no significant threat to public