National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning
[Federal Register: December 2, 1994]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[AD-FRL-5111-3]
RIN 2060-AC31
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule and test method.
SUMMARY: This final rule promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants for halogenated solvent cleaners. These
standards implement section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) and are
based on the Administrator's determination that halogenated solvent
cleaning machines emit halogenated organic chemicals identified in the
Act list of 189 hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The halogenated solvent
cleaner NESHAP requires batch vapor solvent cleaning machines and inline
solvent cleaning machines to meet emission standards reflecting
the application of the maximum achievable control technology for major
and area sources; area source batch cold cleaning machines are required
to achieve generally available control technology. The rule regulates
the emissions of the following halogenated HAP solvents: methylene
chloride (MC), perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (TCA), carbon tetrachloride (CT), and chloroform (C).
The EPA is also finalizing Method 307 with the standard. This
method can be used to demonstrate compliance with the idling standard.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 2, 1994. See Supplementary Information section
concerning judicial review.
ADDRESSES: Background Information Document. The background information
document (BID) for the promulgated standards may be obtained from the
U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to ``National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Halogenated Solvent Cleaning--
Background Information for Final Standards,'' EPA No. 453/R-94-071. The
BID contains: (1) a summary of all the public comments made on the
proposed standards and the Administrator's response to the comments;
and (2) a summary of the changes made to the standards since proposal.
A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
Docket. A docket, No. A-92-39, containing information considered by
the EPA in development of the promulgated standards, is available for
public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (formerly known as the
Air Docket) (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 [phone:
(202) 260-7548]. The docket is located at the above address in Room M-
1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the final
standard, contact Mr. Paul Almodovar, Coatings and Consumer Products
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-0283.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: National emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for halogenated solvent cleaners were proposed
in the Federal Register on November 29, 1993 (58 FR 62566). This
Federal Register action announces the EPA's final decisions on the
rule. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the NESHAP
is available only by the filing of a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act,
the requirements that are the subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
I. The Standards
National emission standards for major sources of hazardous air
pollutants established under section 112 of the Act reflect:
``* * * the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the HAP
* * that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements, determine is
achievable for new or existing sources in the category or
subcategory to which such emission standards applies * * *'' (the
Act section 112(d)(2)).
Area sources are regulated with a MACT standard, unless there is
justification for regulating them under GACT.
The promulgated standard includes multiple alternatives to allow
owners or operators maximum compliance flexibility. These alternatives
include an equipment standard, in conjunction with work practice
requirements, and an alternative overall solvent emissions standard.
The idling emission limit and the alternative overall solvent emission
standard are not available to owners or operators of batch cold
cleaning machines.
If an owner or operator of a batch vapor or in-line cleaning
machine elects to comply with the equipment standard, they must install
one of the control combinations listed in the regulation, use an
automated parts handling system to process all parts, and follow
multiple work practices. As an alternative to selecting one of the
equipment control combinations listed in the regulation, an owner or
operator may demonstrate that the batch vapor or in-line cleaning
machine can meet the idling mode emission limit specified in the
standards. In addition to maintaining this idling mode emission limit,
the owner or operator of a batch vapor or in-line solvent cleaning
machine must use an automated parts handling system to process all
parts and comply with the work practice standards. A third alternative
for complying with these standards is to comply with the overall
solvent emissions limit. An owner or operator complying with the
overall solvent emissions limit is required to ensure that the
emissions from each solvent cleaning machine are less than or equal to
the solvent emission levels specified in the standard. Under this
alternative standard, an owner or operator is not required to use an
automated parts handling system or to comply with the work practice
standards.
The batch cold cleaning machine standard is an equipment standard.
However, those owners or operators choosing the equipment options
without the water layer must also comply with work practice
requirements. There is no idling standard or overall solvent emissions
standard for batch cold cleaning machines. Batch cold cleaning machines
located at nonmajor sources are exempt from title V permit
requirements.
Section 114(a)(3) of the amended CAA requires enhanced monitoring
and compliance certification of all major stationary sources. The
annual compliance certifications certify whether compliance has been
continuous or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of
detecting deviations from each applicable emission limit or standard
with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision, reliability,
frequency and timeliness to determine if compliance is continuous
during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation satisfies
the requirements of enhanced monitoring.
II. Summary of Impacts
These standards will reduce nationwide emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from halogenated solvent cleaning machines by 77,400
Mg/yr (85,300 tons per year), or 63 percent by 1997 compared to the
emissions that would result in the absence of the standards. No adverse
secondary air impacts, water or solid waste impacts are anticipated
from the promulgation of these standards.
The national annual energy usage due to the installation of the
required control devices is expected to increase from 12.9 million KWH/
yr to 66.9 million KWH/yr, which is equivalent to approximately 29.3
thousand barrels of oil. These estimates do not include energy savings
from reduced solvent use.
The implementation of this regulation is expected to result in an
overall annual national net savings of $19 million. This includes a net
annualized savings from installation of control devices of $30.5
million and a total monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping costs of
$11.6 million. These savings will come from the significant decrease in
solvent emissions and, therefore, solvent consumption, which outweigh
the overall cost of air pollution control equipment and monitoring and
recordkeeping costs.
The economic impact analysis done at proposal showed that the
economic impacts from the proposed standard would be insignificant. The
economic impact analysis has not been revised for promulgation because
the changes in costs are not expected to have any effect on the results
of the analysis. While the estimated annual costs for the regulation
have increased since proposal, there are still cost savings for most
affected entities. Only entities with small or medium-sized cleaning
machines will not have cost savings, and the costs for the selected
regulatory alternatives for these entities have changed very little
since proposal. Since those entities that do not have cost savings were
the only ones analyzed in the proposal, and these costs have changed
little, the results from the economic impact analysis at proposal
should still hold for promulgation.
III. Significant Changes to the Proposed Standards
A. Public Participation
Prior to proposal of the standards, interested parties were advised
by public notice in the Federal Register (57 FR 46854), of a meeting of
the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee to
discuss the halogenated solvent cleaner source recommended for
proposal. This meeting was held on November 17 and 18, 1992. The
meeting was open to the public and each attendee was given an
opportunity to comment on the standards recommended for proposal.
The standards were proposed and published in the Federal Register
on November 29, 1993 (58 FR 62566). The preamble to the proposed
standards discussed the availability of the BID, which described the
regulatory alternatives considered and the impacts of those
alternatives. Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal,
and copies of the BID were distributed to interested parties.
To provide interested persons the opportunity for oral presentation
of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed standards, a
public hearing was offered at proposal; however, one was not requested.
The public comment period was from November 29, 1993 to January 28,
1994. Fifty-seven comment letters were received. The comments have been
carefully considered, and changes have been made in the proposed
standards when determined by the Administrator to be appropriate.
B. Comments on the Proposed Standards
Comments on the proposed standards were received from 57 commenters
composed mainly of States, solvent cleaning machine users, solvent
cleaning machine vendors, industry and industry trade associations. A
detailed discussion of these comments and responses can be found in the
promulgation BID, which is referenced in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. The summary of comments and response in the BID serve as the
basis for the revisions that have been made to the standards between
proposal and promulgation. Most of the comment letters contained
multiple comments. The comments have been divided into the following
areas:
<bullet> Selection of pollutants and source categories for
regulation.
<bullet> Emission control options.
<bullet> Regulatory alternatives.
<bullet> Benefits analysis/economics.
<bullet> Equipment, idling, work practice and overall solvent
emission limit standards.
<bullet> Modification and reconstruction considerations.
<bullet> Monitoring requirements.
<bullet> Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
<bullet> Operating permit program.
<bullet> Clarifications.
<bullet> Miscellaneous.
C. Significant Changes
Several changes have been made since the proposal of these
standards. The majority of the changes have been made to clarify
portions of the rule that were unclear to the commenters. Other changes
include adding additional control combinations and an equation that
allows cleaning machines that do not have a solvent vapor/air interface
area to comply with the standard by meeting a solvent emission limit
based on cleaning capacity. A summary of the major changes is presented
below.
(1) Several comments were made about the complexity of the rule,
with many commenters offering suggested changes to clarify different
sections. Many of these recommendations have been incorporated into the
final rule. For example, the standards for batch cold cleaning machines
have been moved to a separate section, the operator test has been
included as appendix B, and a table summarizing the applicability of
the General Provisions to this rule has been included in appendix C.
(2) The applicability section of the rule has been clarified to
ensure that the standard regulates only those solvents originally
intended for inclusion; namely, MC, PCE, TCE, TCA, CT, and C. Several
commenters were concerned that, as proposed, the rule could be
interpreted to regulate non-halogenated solvents contaminated by trace
amounts of halogenated solvent. The EPA never intended for these
solvents to be included in these standards.
(3) An equation and table have been added to allow solvent cleaning
machines that do not have a solvent vapor/air interface area to comply
with these standards. Several new cleaning machines are currently being
developed by industry that cannot install the equipment control devices
included in this final rule, do not have an idling mode, and do not
have a solvent vapor/air interface area to relate to the solvent
emission limit. The equation and table in the rule allow owners or
operators of halogenated solvent cleaning machines without a solvent
vapor/air interface area to comply with the standard by meeting an
overall solvent emissions limit based on cleaning capacity that is
equivalent to the overall solvent emissions limit for machines with a
solvent vapor/air interface.
(4) The list of equipment combinations has been modified to remove
overlapping controls and to add carbon adsorbers to the control
combinations.
There are multiple control combinations available for meeting the
rule, many of which are pollution prevention measures. Many of these
options also reduce worker exposure. However, some sources may rely on
lip exhausts instead in order to meet OSHA requirements. Use of a lip
exhaust without any controls, while reducing worker exposure on the one
hand, would dramatically increase the overall emissions to air. Thus,
if lip exhausts are used on solvent cleaning machines, the rule
requires carbon adsorption controls (which have been added explicitly
as a control option in the final rule). Although the lip exhaust-carbon
adsorption combination reduces worker exposure and overall emissions to
air, it may impose additional cost and burden on sources as well as on
the environment for a number of reasons. First, carbon adsorption units
are generally more expensive than other controls listed in the options.
Second, these units may present cross-media impacts such as effluent
discharges if not properly operated and maintained, and spent carbon
beds that have to be disposed of as hazardous waste. Thus, when making
decisions about what controls to install on halogenated solvent
cleaning machines to meet the requirements of this rule, all of these
factors should be weighed and pollution prevention measures are
encouraged wherever possible.
The EPA acknowledges that data show little additional benefit is
achieved by the use of a working-mode cover in the presence of reduced
room draft. Therefore, these controls are no longer included in the
same control combination.
(5) Some changes have also been made to the compliance and
reporting schedules. The initial notification report deadline for
existing sources has been extended from 90 to 270 days after
promulgation. This overrides the 120 day deadline in the final part 63
General Provisions. This was done to allow more time for the delegation
of this rule to the States and to allow more time to process the
reports from the large number of facilities affected by this rule. The
initial statement of compliance report deadline for new and existing
sources has been extended from 30 days to 150 days after the compliance
date to allow time for owners or operators to determine compliance with
the 3-month rolling average emission limit. The compliance time for
existing sources has been extended from 2 to 3 years. This extension
has been provided to allow sources the maximum flexibility in complying
with these standards, including allowing time to consider alternative
cleaning technologies. This change is consistent with the General
Provisions (Sec. 63.6(b)(3)). The exceedance report schedule has been
changed to include a biannual exceedance report if there is not an
exceedance. This change is consistent with the General Provisions
(Sec. 63.10(e)). Exceedance reports must still be submitted quarterly
if there is an exceedance.
(6) Several commenters stated that the rule was complex and
difficult to understand. They stated that additional guidance should be
provided, particularly for small businesses. The EPA agrees that
guidance would be helpful and has developed a brochure summarizing the
rule, and will be developing a guidance manual that is scheduled for
publication in January 1995. This guidance manual includes a detailed
summary of the rule, example forms that can be used for reporting and
recordkeeping, and additional assistance for evaluating alternative
cleaning technologies.
(7) Several commenters recommended that the EPA reduce the
monitoring frequency of the emission control equipment. The EPA
evaluated the monitoring frequencies and has added a provision to the
final rule that allows the hoist monitoring frequency to decrease from
monthly to quarterly if, the owner or operator has operated the hoist
for one year without an exceedance in the hoist speed. The EPA has also
changed the reduced room draft (RRD) monitoring frequency from weekly
to quarterly with weekly monitoring of the parameters used to obtain
the RRD.
(8) Several comments were received on the batch cold cleaning
machine equipment requirement provisions. A number of commenters
reported the use of TCA, MC, and TCE in noncarburetor batch cold
cleaning machine operations. The commenters stated that the proposed
water layer control option was not always possible for these cleaning
machines, particularly when TCA or TCE solvents are used. In order to
address this issue, alternative control equipment options were added to
the final rule to allow for the use of an increased freeboard ratio and
cover, or remote-reservoir and cover, in lieu of a water layer and
cover. An owner or operator complying with these alternative options
must also comply with work practice requirements. The final rule also
allows an owner or operator of a batch cold cleaning machine to use
alternative control equipment, if demonstrated to be equivalent to the
equipment requirements cited in the final rule and approved by the
Administrator.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket
is a dynamic file, since material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the statement of basis and purpose of the proposed and
promulgated standards and the EPA responses to significant comments,
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in case of judicial
review (section 307(d)(7)(A)).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements associated with this regulation
(those included in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A and Subpart T) have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and have been assigned OMB control number (2060-0273). An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by the
EPA (ICR No. 1652.02) to reflect the changed information requirements
of the final rule and has been submitted to OMB for review. A copy may
be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA 2136, 401
M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The annual respondent burden and costs averaged over the first 3
years for batch vapor and in-line cleaning machine subcategories are
359,000 hours and $12.0 million. Since the reporting burden for some of
the required activities will be incurred only once, the average annual
burden for batch vapor and in-line cleaning machine subcategories will
decrease after the first two years of implementation. For the batch
cold cleaning machine subcategory, the annual respondent burden and
costs averaged over the first 3 years are 33,000 hours and $1.1
million. The batch cold cleaning machine subcategory is not expected to
incur costs after the initial activities.
This collection of information is estimated to have an annual
public reporting and recordkeeping burden averaging 42 hours per
facility over the first 3 years. These burden estimates include time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Several commenters to the proposed rule in recognizing this burden
noted that the rule was complex and difficult to understand, and
suggested that additional guidance be provided, particularly for small
businesses. To address these concerns the Emission Standards Division
and the Small Business Assistance Program are developing a brochure to
summarize this rule, and will be developing a guidance manual scheduled
to be published in January 1995. This manual will include a detailed
summary of the rule, example forms for reporting and recordkeeping, to
alleviate at least in part the paperwork burden, and additional
material for evaluating alternative cleaning technologies.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspects of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch (2/36), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA.''
C. Executive Order 12866
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 ``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 loan 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.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, OMB has notified EPA
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action to
OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (or RFA, Pub. L. 96-354, September
19, 1980) requires Federal agencies to give special consideration to
the impact of regulation on small businesses. The RFA specifies that a
final regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared if a proposed
regulation will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. To determine whether a final RFA is required,
a screening analysis, otherwise known as an initial RFA, is necessary.
Regulatory impacts are considered significant if:
(1) Annual compliance costs increase total costs of production by
more than 5 percent; or
(2) Annual compliance costs as a percent of sales are at least 20
percent (percentage points) higher for small entities; or
(3) Capital cost of compliance represents a significant portion of
capital available to small entities; or
(4) The requirements of the regulation are likely to result in
closures of small entities. A ``substantial number'' of small entities
is generally considered to be more than 20 percent of the small
entities in the affected industry. Since the economic analysis deals
only with small entities (in this case, facilities), it is also an
initial RFA, and conclusions about the impacts on small entities can be
drawn from what was done there already. Each of the criteria for
significant impacts will be considered in turn.
The largest increase in total cost of production from increased
emission control is 0.61 percent (SIC 359--Industrial Machinery,
n.e.c.). This figure is well below the significant-impact threshold of
five percent.
Assessing the differential impacts, measured by a comparison of
compliance costs as a percent of sales for small and large entities, is
more difficult as large model facilities were not analyzed in the
economic impact analysis. Treatment of this small business impacts
criterion involves creating two large model facilities.
It is assumed that large facilities use large solvent cleaning
machines, then compliance costs for large cleaning machines are
negative, and are thus savings. To be conservative, it is assumed here
that large model facilities possess five very large solvent cleaning
machines, so that a ``maximum savings'' case is modelled. This case is
important as it models the maximum cost differential between large and
small facilities.
Large model facilities were created for SICs 359 (Industrial
Machinery, n.e.c.) and 254 (Partitions and Fixtures). SIC 359 was
chosen because the small model facilities in this group experience the
highest cost absorption impacts when compared with other small model
facilities. SIC 254 was used because it had the smallest average perfacility
revenue of facilities with greater than 100 employees. Thus,
if they incur the same absolute savings as other large facilities,
their relative percentage savings will be the highest, and they will
experience the greatest cost savings in percentage terms as a result of
the standard. The cost differentials are in no case larger than one
percentage point. Thus, by this criterion, small business impacts are
not deemed significant.
The third criterion focuses on the amount of capital available to
small businesses or facilities. Since the capital costs incurred as a
result of investment in control equipment needed for small businesses
to meet the standard was less than 10 percent of the businesses' total
assets in all 39 affected SIC codes, it was concluded that the total
assets of small facilities will not be so adversely affected as to
prohibit the procurement of outside financing. (Examining an increase
in capital costs as a percentage of total assets is a measure of the
ability of a firm or facility to meet this capital costs increase.) The
conclusion, then, is that lack of available capital will not be an
obstacle for small facilities in complying with the regulation.
Criterion number four stipulates that small business impacts are
significant if compliance leads to closure. The only implication of
closure in the economic impact analysis is found in the section on
earnings impacts. Here it was found that, under worst-case assumptions,
closures might occur in only two SIC codes, 254 and 259 (Miscellaneous
Furniture and Fixtures), given their low rate of profitability in the
baseline. If this indeed occurs, the question of whether or not these
closures make up a substantial portion of small entities must be
addressed. The actual number of impacted facilities in the 39 impacted
SICs is unknown. If it can be assumed that each SIC is impacted in the
same proportion, a proxy for the share of impacted facilities
represented by SIC codes 254 and 259 is the total number of facilities
in these SIC codes as a share of the total number of potentially
impacted firms. SIC codes 254 and 259 hold a combined total 3,194 small
facilities. This makes up 3.4 percent of the total 93,121 small
facilities in all 39 SIC codes. Thus, in the extreme case that some
closures result, the number of closures is estimated to be far less
than the amount required to impact a substantial number of facilities.
In conclusion, and pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The basis for the certification is that the
economic impacts for small entities do not meet or exceed the four
criteria in the Guidelines to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as shown above. Further information on the initial RFA is available in
the background information package (see Background Information Document
section near the beginning of this preamble).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Halogenated solvent cleaning machines, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 15, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:
PART 9--[AMENDED]
The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 135-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344,
1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975
Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1,
300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3,
300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-
9657, 11023, 11048.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding in numerical order a new entry
to the table under the indicated heading to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * *
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
*****
for Source Categories:
*****
*****
or Less
Option Control combinations
vapor.
vapor.
7......... Freeboard refrigeration device, dwell.
wherever possible.
Square Feet)
Option Control combinations
superheated vapor.
superheated vapor.
vapor.
superheated vapor.
freeboard ratio of 1.0.
adsorber.
wherever possible.
Machines
Option Control combinations
3......... Dwell, freeboard refrigeration device.
4......... Dwell, carbon adsorber.
wherever possible.
Option Control combinations
3......... Superheated vapor, carbon adsorber.
wherever possible.
3-month
rolling
average
monthly
emission
Solvent cleaning machine limit
(kilograms/
square
meters/
month)
Interface
3-month rolling average monthly
0.00.............................. 0
0.05.............................. 55
0.10.............................. 83
0.15.............................. 106
0.20.............................. 126
0.25.............................. 144
0.30.............................. 160
0.35.............................. 176
0.40.............................. 190
0.45.............................. 204
0.50.............................. 218
0.55.............................. 231
0.60.............................. 243
0.65.............................. 255
0.70.............................. 266
0.75.............................. 278
0.80.............................. 289
0.85.............................. 299
0.90.............................. 310
0.95.............................. 320
1.00.............................. 330
1.05.............................. 340
1.10.............................. 349
1.15.............................. 359
1.20.............................. 368
1.25.............................. 377
1.30.............................. 386
1.35.............................. 395
1.40.............................. 404
1.45.............................. 412
1.50.............................. 421
1.55.............................. 429
1.60.............................. 438
1.65.............................. 446
1.70.............................. 454
1.75.............................. 462
1.80.............................. 470
1.85.............................. 477
1.90.............................. 485
1.95.............................. 493
2.00.............................. 500
2.05.............................. 508
2.10.............................. 515
2.15.............................. 522
2.20.............................. 530
2.25.............................. 537
2.30.............................. 544
2.35.............................. 551
2.40.............................. 558
2.45.............................. 565
2.50.............................. 572
2.55.............................. 579
2.60.............................. 585
2.65.............................. 592
2.70.............................. 599
2.75.............................. 605
2.80.............................. 612
2.85.............................. 619
2.90.............................. 625
2.95.............................. 632
Boiling Immersion
reading reading reading
Appendix C--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart T
Applies to subpart T
Reference ---------------------------- Comments
BCC BVI
63.1(a) (1)-(3).............. Yes......... Yes.........
each paragraph in subpart A to subpart T.
63.1(a)(5)................... No.......... No..........
63.1(a) (6)-(8).............. Yes......... Yes.........
63.1(a)(9)................... No.......... No..........
63.1(a)(10).................. Yes......... Yes.........
reports through the U.S. mail, fax, and courier.
Subpart T requires that the postmark for
notifications and reports submitted through the U.S.
mail or other non-Governmental mail carriers be on
or before deadline specified in an applicable
requirement.
63.1(a) (12)-(14)............ Yes......... Yes.........
63.1(b)(1)................... No.......... No.......... Subpart T specifies applicability.
63.1(b)(2)................... No.......... Yes.........
cleaning machine applicability determination be kept
on site for 5 years, or until the cleaning machine
changes its operations. The record shall be
sufficiently detailed to allow the Administrator to
make a finding about the source's applicability
status with regard to subpart T.
63.1(c)(1)................... Yes......... Yes.........
permit exemption for halogenated HAP batch cold
solvent cleaning machines that are not major sources
and not located at a major source. This section also
specifies a deferral from the requirement of a Title
V permit for owners or operators of solvent cleaning
machines subject to subpart T provisions, other than
halogenated HAP batch cold solvent cleaning
machines, that are not major sources, and not
located at a major source.
63.1(c)(3)................... No.......... No..........
63.1(c)(4)................... Yes......... Yes.........
systems (CMS) or continuous opacity monitoring
systems. Therefore, notifications and requirements
for CMS and COMS specified in subpart A do not apply
to subpart T.
63.1(d)...................... No.......... No..........
63.1(e)...................... No.......... Yes.........
and new overlap with the definitions for existing
source and new source in subpart A (section 63.2).
Both subpart A and T also define Administrator.
63.3(a)-(c).................. Yes......... Yes.........
63.4(a) (1)-(3).............. Yes......... Yes.........
63.4(a)(4)................... No.......... No..........
63.4(a)(5)................... Yes......... Yes.........
63.4(b)-(c).................. Yes......... Yes.........
63.5(a)(1)................... Yes......... Yes.........
63.5(a)(2)................... Yes......... Yes.........
63.5(b)(1)................... Yes......... Yes.........
63.5(b)(2)................... No.......... No..........
prior to constructing a new or reconstructing an
existing major source.
63.5(b)(4)-(6)............... Yes......... Yes.........
63.5(c)...................... No.......... No..........
application for approval of construction or
reconstruction of a halogenated solvent cleaning
machine.
63.6(a)...................... Yes......... Yes.........
dates.
63.6(b)(6)................... No.......... No..........
halogenated HAP solvent cleaning machine
subcategories that are located at area sources as it
does for those located at major sources.
promulgation for both area and major existing
sources to comply.
63.6(c) (3)-(4).............. No.......... No..........
halogenated HAP solvent cleaning machine
subcategories that are located at area sources as it
does for those located at major sources.
Subpart T allows 3 years from the date of
promulgation for both area and major existing
sources to comply.
63.6(d)...................... No.......... No..........
63.6(e)(1)-(2)............... Yes......... Yes.........
shutdown, and malfunction plan. Subpart T specifies
startup and shutdown procedures to be followed by an
owner or operator for batch vapor and in-line
cleaning machines.
63.6(f)-(g).................. Yes......... Yes.........
or visible emission standard.
63.6(i) (1)-(14)............. Yes......... Yes.........
63.6(i)(15).................. No.......... No..........
63.6(i)(16).................. Yes......... Yes.........
63.6(j)...................... Yes......... Yes.........
perform an idling emission performance test as a way
of demonstrating compliance. Other options are also
available that do not require a performance test.
that choose the idling emission standard as their
compliance option.
that choose the idling emission standard as their
compliance option.
for the idling emission performance test.
involves the retrieval of gas samples, and therefore
this does not apply.
performance test option.
63.7(e)...................... No.......... Yes.........
63.7(f)...................... No.......... Yes.........
idling emission standard compliance through the use
of the Environmental Protection Agency test method
307 and control device monitoring. Reports and
records of testing and monitoring are required for
compliance verification. Three runs of the test are
required for compliance, as specified in section
63.7(e) of subpart A.
test to comply with the standard. The idling
emission standard option (which requires an idling
emission performance test) is an alternative option
offered to owners or operators of batch vapor and in-
line cleaning machines for compliance flexibility.
63.8 (a)-(b)................. Yes......... Yes.........
monitoring systems to demonstrate compliance.
63.8(f)...................... Yes......... Yes.........
monitoring systems and continuous monitoring systems
data.
63.9(a) (1)-(4).............. Yes......... Yes.........
63.9(b)(1)................... Yes......... Yes.........
in subpart A, except that subpart A also requires a
statement as to whether the affected source is a
major or an area source, and an identification of
the relevant standard (including the source's
compliance date). Subpart T also has some more
specific information requirements specific to the
affected source (see subpart T, sections 63.468(a)-
(b)).
reports differ (see above).
approval of construction or reconstruction.
owners or operators choosing to comply with the
idling emissions standard.
emission observations.
monitoring systems or continuous opacity monitoring
systems.
statement of compliance for existing sources to be
submitted to the Administrator no later than 150
days after the compliance date specified in section
63.460(d) of subpart T. For new sources, this report
is to be submitted to the Administrator no later
than 150 days from the date specified in section
63.460(c).
63.9(i)...................... Yes......... Yes.........
63.9(j)...................... Yes......... Yes.........
63.10(a)..................... Yes......... Yes.........
T.
systems.
63.10(d)(1).................. Yes......... Yes.........
monitoring systems.
systems.
monitoring systems.
63.10(f)..................... Yes......... Yes.........
63.11(a)..................... Yes......... Yes.........
63.12 (a)-(c)................ Yes......... Yes.........
63.13 (a)-(c)................ Yes......... Yes.........
test methods incorporated by reference in subpart A.
63.15(a)-(b)................. Yes......... Yes.........
BCC=Batch Cold Cleaning Machines.
BVI=Batch Vapor and In-line Cleaning Machines.
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}