[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61662-61664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25127]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0680; FRL-9209-7]


State of California; Request for Approval of Section 112(l) 
Authority for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Perchloroethylene Air Emission 
Standards From Dry Cleaning Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve California's Airborne Toxic 
Control Measure for Emissions of Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning 
and Water-Repelling Operations, Requirements for Perc Manufacturers, 
and Requirements for Perc Distributors to be implemented and enforced 
in place of the National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for 
Dry Cleaning Facilities. EPA is proposing this action under section 
112(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are taking comments on this 
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments on California's request for approval must be received 
on or before November 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0680, concurrently to EPA and the California Air Resources Board. 
Comments submitted to the California Air Resources Board should be 
mailed to the address below:

Dan Donohoue, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch, Stationary Source 
Division, California Air Resources Board, 1001 ``I'' Street, P.O. Box 
2815, Sacramento, CA 95812.

    Comments sent to EPA should be submitted by one of the following 
methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed9e99888e868881c38c83899f889aad889d8cc38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="added9c8cec6c8c183ccc3c9dfc8daedc8ddcc83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>.
    3. Mail or Deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be 
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to 
EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as 
part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 
all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information 
may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., 
copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either 
location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4124, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85f2e4ebe2abe8e4e0c5e0f5e4abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="483f29262f6625292d082d3829662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of ContentsI. Background

I. Background
II. California's Submittal
    A. Amended Dry Cleaning ATCM
    B. Major Dry Cleaning Sources
    C. California District Rules
    D. California's Authorities and Resources to Implement and 
Enforce CAA Section 112 Standards
III. EPA's Evaluation
IV. Public Comment and Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Under CAA section 112(l), EPA is authorized to delegate to State 
agencies the authority to implement and enforce the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). The Federal 
regulations governing EPA's approval of State rules or programs under 
section 112(l) are located at 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. Under these 
regulations, a State has the option to request EPA's approval to 
substitute a State rule for the comparable NESHAP. Under this ``rule 
substitution'' option, EPA is required to make a detailed and thorough 
evaluation of the State's submittal to ensure that it meets the 
stringency and other requirements of 40 CFR 63.93. Upon approval the 
State is given the authority to implement and enforce its rule in lieu 
of the NESHAP.
    On September 22, 1993, EPA promulgated the NESHAP for 
perchloroethylene (perc) dry cleaning facilities, which has been 
codified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart M, National Perchloroethylene Air 
Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities (dry cleaning NESHAP) 
(see 58 FR 49354). On May 21, 1996, EPA approved a request submitted by 
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for approval to implement and 
enforce California's Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of 
Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations (original dry cleaning 
ATCM) in lieu of the dry cleaning NESHAP (see 61 FR 25397).
    On July 27, 2006, EPA amended the dry cleaning NESHAP (see 71 FR 
42743). In 2007, CARB revised California's original dry cleaning ATCM.

II. California's Submittal

A. Amended Dry Cleaning ATCM

    California's Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of 
Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning and Water Repelling Operations, 
Requirements for Perc Manufacturers, and Requirements for Perc 
Distributors, sections 93109, 93109.1, and 93109.2, Title 17 of the 
California Code of Regulations (amended dry cleaning ATCM), became 
State law on December 27, 2007. On July 15, 2009, CARB submitted a 
request to implement and enforce the amended dry cleaning ATCM in lieu 
of the dry cleaning NESHAP and the previously approved original dry 
cleaning ATCM. This request was submitted pursuant to the

[[Page 61663]]

provisions of 40 CFR 63.93 and found to be complete on August 13, 2009.
    The amended dry cleaning ATCM is implementing a ban on the use of 
perc in dry cleaning operations in California. Since January 1, 2008, 
there has been a prohibition on the installation or use of any perc dry 
cleaning machines at new facilities. Existing facilities must meet 
equipment and operational requirements until the existing machines are 
phased out in accordance with the time frames established in the 
amended dry cleaning ATCM.

B. Major Dry Cleaning Sources

    Under the dry cleaning NESHAP, dry cleaning facilities are divided 
between major sources and area sources. CARB's request for approval 
includes only those provisions of the dry cleaning NESHAP that apply to 
area sources. Thus, dry cleaning facilities that are major sources, as 
defined by the dry cleaning NESHAP, remain subject to the dry cleaning 
NESHAP and the CAA Title V operating permit program.

C. California District Rules

    After the May 21, 1996, approval of the original dry cleaning ATCM, 
the following California District rules were approved in place of the 
dry cleaning NESHAP:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                District                                Rule                  Adoption date      Approval date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Luis Obispo County APCD.............  432: Perchloroethylene Dry               11/13/1996         12/10/1997
                                           Cleaning Operations.                                    (62 FR 65022)
South Coast AQMD........................  1421: Control of                          6/13/1997          5/13/1998
                                           Perchloroethylene Emissions                             (63 FR 26463)
                                           from Dry Cleaning Systems.
Yolo-Solano AQMD........................  9.7: Perchloroethylene Dry               11/13/1998          1/28/1999
                                           Cleaning Operations.                                     (64 FR 4298)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the current submittal of the amended dry cleaning ATCM is 
approved, then the amended dry cleaning ATCM will replace the above 
rules from San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District and 
Yolo-Solano County Air Quality Management District as the federally-
enforceable regulation in those Districts for perc dry cleaning area 
sources. In the future, a District may request approval for a local 
rule under the provisions of 40 CFR Sec.  63.93. Until a request for 
delegation of a local regulation is submitted and approved by EPA, the 
amended dry cleaning ATCM would serve as the federally applicable 
regulation, with the one exception discussed below.
    In the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the 
previously approved version of Rule 1421 would remain in place as the 
federally-enforceable regulation for perc dry cleaning area sources. 
The SCAQMD has asked to be excluded from the CARB request for 
delegation and intends to submit an amended version of Rule 1421 in a 
separate delegation request in the future. Therefore, if the amended 
dry cleaning ATCM is approved, then it will be the federally applicable 
regulation for perc dry cleaning area sources in all Districts of 
California except the SCAQMD.

D. California's Authorities and Resources To Implement and Enforce CAA 
Section 112 Standards

    Any request for approval under CAA section 112(l) must meet the 
approval criteria in 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. To 
streamline the approval process for future applications, a State may 
submit for approval a demonstration that it has adequate authorities 
and resources to implement and enforce any CAA section 112 standards. 
Approval of this demonstration will obviate the need for the State to 
resubmit in each subsequent request for approval its prior 
demonstration that it has adequate authorities and resources to 
implement and enforce the section 112 standard.
    As part of its original dry cleaning ATCM application, approved on 
May 21, 1996, CARB also requested and received approval of California's 
authorities and resources to implement and enforce all CAA section 112 
programs and rules, with the exception of the accidental release 
prevention program promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(r) (see 61 
FR 25397). Although approval of California's authorities and resources 
did not result in delegation of the section 112 standards, it obviated 
the need for California to resubmit a demonstration of these same 
authorities and resources for every subsequent request for delegation 
of section 112 standards, regardless of whether the State requests 
approval of rules that are identical to or differ from the Federal 
standards as promulgated.
    In CARB's request for approval of the amended dry cleaning ATCM, 
submitted on July 15, 2009, CARB satisfied the need to submit certain 
demonstrations of legal authorities and resources by referencing the 
demonstrations contained in its original application, approved on May 
21, 1996 (see 61 FR 25397), and stating that those demonstrations are 
still applicable. By reference, those original demonstrations are 
considered a part of this current submittal. The approval of the 
original application contained a more detailed discussion of EPA's 
evaluation of these demonstrations of legal authorities and resources, 
including a discussion of penalty authorities and variances. The May 
21, 1996, action should be consulted for further information.

III. EPA's Evaluation

    When a State requests EPA's approval to substitute a State rule for 
the applicable CAA section 112 Federal rule, EPA is required to ``make 
a detailed and thorough evaluation of the State's submittal to ensure 
that it meets the stringency and other requirements'' of 40 CFR 63.93 
(see 58 FR 62274). After reviewing CARB's request for approval of its 
amended dry cleaning ATCM (see docket for more information), EPA has 
determined that CARB's request meets all the requirements necessary to 
qualify for approval under CAA section 112(l) and 40 CFR 63.91 and 
63.93.
    While EPA notes that there are differences between the dry cleaning 
NESHAP and the amended dry cleaning ATCM because the regulations differ 
in structure and approach, the amended dry cleaning ATCM is designed to 
phase out the use of perc at dry cleaning facilities. For example, in 
addition to California's previous prohibition of transfer, vented, and 
self-service perc dry cleaning machines, the sale or new lease of perc 
dry cleaning machines was prohibited as of January 1, 2008. The use of 
perc dry cleaning machines or perc water-repelling operations at new 
facilities was also prohibited, along with the use of drying cabinets 
and dip tanks. As of July 1, 2010, existing perc converted machines and 
perc dry cleaning machines at co-residential locations have been 
prohibited. Other machines are being phased out according to the age of 
the machine, and all remaining perc dry cleaning machines must be 
removed from service

[[Page 61664]]

by January 1, 2023. In the final analysis, EPA believes that approval 
of the amended dry cleaning ATCM will result in emission reductions 
from each affected sources that are no less stringent than would result 
from the dry cleaning NESHAP. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to grant 
California the authority to implement and enforce its amended dry 
cleaning ATCM in place of the dry cleaning NESHAP for area sources in 
the State of California, with the exception of the SCAQMD.

IV. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    Because EPA believes California's request meets all the 
requirements necessary to qualify for approval under CAA section 112(l) 
and 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.93, we are proposing approval of the amended 
dry cleaning ATCM as a substitute for the dry cleaning NESHAP. We will 
accept comments on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we 
receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend 
to publish a final approval action that will establish the amended dry 
cleaning ATCM as the federally-enforceable regulation in California, 
with the exception of the SCAQMD, for perc dry cleaning area sources. 
Although California would have primary implementation and enforcement 
responsibility, EPA would retain the right, pursuant to CAA section 
112(l)(7), to enforce any applicable emission standard or requirement 
under CAA section 112. If this proposal is finalized, the amended dry 
cleaning ATCM would be the federally-enforceable standard in California 
and would be enforceable by the Administrator and citizens under the 
CAA. However, any provision of the amended dry cleaning ATCM that 
allows for the approval of alternative means of emission limitations 
must also receive approval from EPA before such alternatives can be 
used (e.g., Section 93109(d)(27) and (38), and (i)(3)(A)(2)). 
Additionally, this delegation does not extend to the provisions 
regarding California's enforcement authorities or its collection of 
fees as described in Sections 93109.1(c) and 93109.2(c) and (d), Title 
17 of the California Code of Regulations. Approval of the amended dry 
cleaning ATCM does not in any way limit the enforcement authorities, 
including the penalty authorities, of the Clean Air Act.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a State 
delegation submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7412(l); 40 CFR 63.90. Thus, 
in reviewing delegation submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
submitted rule is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Title 
III of the Clean Air Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2399.

    Dated: August 30, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-25127 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>