National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities Technology Review, 1041-1048 [2024-31223]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1 typographical error to correct a reference in 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(iii) to 40 CFR part 63 subpart MMM instead of 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHH. It is critical to timely correct the identified error to avoid confusion. This action is effective immediately upon publication. The APA typically requires publication of a final rule to precede its effective date by at least 30 days unless, as relevant here, the agency finds good cause to make the rule effective sooner. APA section 553(b)(B). Under APA section 553(d), these technical corrections are both necessary and beneficial to regulated entities in understanding and complying with the final rule’s requirements. Further, because this rule does not impose any new regulatory requirements, the regulated community does not need time to prepare for it to come into effect. See Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc’n Comm’n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (in determining whether good cause exists to make a rule immediately effective, an agency should ‘‘balance the necessity for immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the effective date of its ruling’’). Good cause exists for this rule to be made immediately effective. The EPA has balanced the necessity for immediate implementation against the benefits of delaying implementation. Because this rule makes a typographical correction to a rule that has already been promulgated, the public is aware of the content of the rule. Making the corrections effective immediately will make the regulatory text consistent with what the proposed rule and the preamble to the final rule have described. 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 A—General Provisions 2. Amend § 63.1 by revising paragraph (c)(6)(iii) as follows: ■ § 63.1 Applicability. * * * * * (c) * * * (6) * * * (iii) After September 10, 2024, affected sources subject to the following 40 CFR part 63 subparts on September 10, 2024, must remain subject to those subparts, and any modifications thereafter, even if the source becomes an area source by reducing both its actual emissions and potential to emit hazardous air pollutants to below major source thresholds: F, G, H, I, L, R, X, CC, GG, II, JJ, KK, LL, MM, EEE, JJJ, LLL, MMM, RRR, UUU, FFFF, JJJJ, MMMM, PPPP, ZZZZ, CCCCC, DDDDD, FFFFF, IIIII, LLLLL, YYYYY, JJJJJJ, EEEEEEE. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2024–31226 Filed 1–6–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final determination. This action finalizes the Clean Air Act (CAA) technology review (TR) conducted for the commercial and industrial dry cleaning facilities using perchloroethylene (PCE) as the cleaning solvent (PCE Dry Cleaning) source categories regulated under National Emission Standards for Hazardous air Pollutants (NESHAP). This final rule does not finalize the changes made at proposal and makes no amendments to the current NESHAP given the recently finalized action under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) which CAA Clean Air Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register GACT generally available control technology HAP hazardous air pollutants(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 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0155; FRL–8391–01– OAR] RIN 2060–AV44 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities Technology Review Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Jan 06, 2025 Jkt 265001 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AGENCY: For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: has instituted a 10-year phaseout of the use of PCE for dry cleaning. DATES: This action is effective on January 7, 2024. ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0155. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information 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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through https:// www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 1742. For questions about this final action, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Reginald Goodwin, Mail Drop: D243–04, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–5313; and email address: goodwin.reginald@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this notice the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ 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: List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Michael S. Regan, Administrator. 1041 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM 07JAR1 1042 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention OMB Office of Management and Budget PCE perchloroethylene PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act tpy tons per year TR technology review TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1 Background information. On December 27, 2021, the EPA proposed revisions to the National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities NESHAP (hereafter referred to as the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP) based on our technology review (TR). In this action, we are finalizing decisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA’s responses to those comments is available in the Response to Comments National Perchloroethylene Air Emissions Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities document, which is available in the Docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– 0155). 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? C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What are the PCE Dry Cleaning source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from these source categories? C. What changes did we propose for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP in our December 27, 2021, proposal? III. What is included in this final rule? A. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP? IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP? A. Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? B. What are the air quality, cost, economic impacts, and benefits? C. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? D. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Jan 06, 2025 Jkt 265001 VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review 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 K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble. copy of this final action at: https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/dry-cleaning-facilitiesnational-perchloroethylene-airemission. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same website. Additional information is available on the RTR website at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/risk-and-technology-reviewnational-emissions-standardshazardous. This information includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites for the RTR source categories. C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the court) by March 10, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA THIS FINAL RULE further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including Dry Cleaning ..... 812310, 812320, 812332 any public hearing) may be raised 1 North American Industry Classification during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to System (NAICS). reconsider the rule if the person raising This list of categories and NAICS an objection can demonstrate to the codes is not intended to be exhaustive, Administrator that it was impracticable but rather provides a guide for readers to raise such objection within the period regarding the entities likely to be for public comment or if the grounds for affected by the final action for the such objection arose after the period for source categories listed. To determine public comment (but within the time whether your facility is affected, you specified for judicial review) and if such should examine the applicability objection is of central relevance to the criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If outcome of the rule. Any person seeking you have any questions regarding the to make such a demonstration should applicability of any aspect of this submit a Petition for Reconsideration to NESHAP, please contact the person the Office of the Administrator, U.S. listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, preamble. Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to B. Where can I get a copy of this both the person(s) listed in the document and other related preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION information? CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and In addition to being available in the Radiation Law Office, Office of General docket, an electronic copy of this final Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a Washington, DC 20460. Source Category and NESHAP PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 NAICS code 1 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM 07JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1 II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 112 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 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 final rule. The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jan 06, 2025 Jkt 265001 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 generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) 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 TR 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 TR 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) or (h). Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020). B. What are the PCE Dry Cleaning source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from these source categories? The EPA promulgated the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP on 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 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 1043 area sources of dry cleaning that use the chemical PCE. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP regulates PCE emitted from the dry cleaning process. The source categories covered by these MACT and GACT standards currently include all PCE dry cleaning facilities in the U.S. Dry cleaning is any cleaning process for clothing using a solvent other than water. Perchloroethylene (PCE), also known as perc, tetrachloroethene and tetrachloroethylene, is widely used in the industry. Establishments may also offer specialty cleaning services for garments and textiles. The 1993 NESHAP exempted coin-operated dry cleaning machines. There are two types of PCE dry cleaning machines: transfer and dry-todry. 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. 1. Transfer Machines (First Generation) 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. 2. Dry-to-Dry Machines (Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Generation) Dry-to-dry machines wash, extract, and dry the articles in a single machine. Eliminating the transfer step results in much lower emissions. a. ‘‘Second generation’’ dry-to-dry machines were vented to the atmosphere from the machine-washing drum at the time that the machine is opened following the drying cycle. b. ‘‘Third generation’’ dry-to-dry machines operated the first ‘‘closedloop’’ machines. This is the first generation where emissions were routed to a refrigerated condenser. c. ‘‘Fourth generation’’ dry-to-dry machines (technology from the early 1990s) are closed-loop systems using the secondary controls refrigerated condenser(s) and a carbon adsorption unit(s). The condenser is a vapor recovery system, condensing PCE by cooling the gas-vapor stream. The air remaining at the end of the cycle passes E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM 07JAR1 1044 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations through a carbon adsorber—a bed of activated carbon into which the air-PCE gas-vapor stream is routed—that removes PCE from the gas-vapor stream prior to door opening. The implementation of both the condenser and adsorber offers greater emissions reductions over a dry-to-dry machine with only a refrigerated condenser, reducing PCE concentration in the air remaining in the machine once the cleaning cycle is complete instead of allowing ventilation or release at the end of the dry cleaning cycle. d. ‘‘Fifth generation’’ machines (technology from the late 1990s) have the same control technology as fourth generation machines, but are also equipped with an inductive fan, internal solvent vapor monitoring devices (sensor) and interlock (lockout) devices not allowing access to the machine until solvent vapor concentrations are below 300 ppm. 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 dryto-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 dryto-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 published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP applies to the following major and area sources of HAP emissions: ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jan 06, 2025 Jkt 265001 • 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 were a subset of commercial operations and included dry cleaning operations located in buildings in which people reside. Co-residential facilities were generally found in urban areas where commercial and residential occupancy occur in a single building, but these facilities are no longer allowed to operate based on the NESHAP requirements. 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: • 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 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 leak detection and repair (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 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 rule (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0155). PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 non-vented dry-to-dry machines with a refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber. • Use a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or PCE gas analyzer to detect PCE leaks, repair the leaks, and maintain records. 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 the 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 the 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 for the 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 finalizing our response to the voluntary remand as part of this final rule making. C. What changes did we propose for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP in our December 27, 2021, proposal? On December 27, 2021, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP that took into consideration the TR analyses. We E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM 07JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations proposed to require that all PCE dry to dry machines at existing major and areas sources have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls. At the time this action was proposed, the available data indicated that no third-generation machines were still in use and since fourth and fifth generation machines already use both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers, the proposed amendment would have no costs or economic impacts. We also proposed a response to the 2009 voluntary remand, stating that the 2006 RTR was appropriate and proposed no changes from how we addressed the PCE ban and phaseout for co-residential sources. III. What is included in this final rule? This action finalizes the EPA’s determinations pursuant to the TR provisions of CAA section 112 for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1 A. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP? We are finalizing a determination that there are no necessary revisions to the NESHAP after considering developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. We note that, as discussed in section IV of this document, a separate regulatory action under TSCA has finalized a 10-year phaseout of the use of PCE in dry cleaning. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the currently promulgated NESHAP standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Further, in response to the voluntary remand of the 2006 RTR, we are likewise concluding that no further evaluation of the NESHAP’s approach to addressing the PCE ban and phaseout for co-residential sources in the 2006 RTR is warranted, considering the EPA’s recent more comprehensive prohibition of the use of PCE in dry cleaning and spot cleaning under TSCA. IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the PCE Dry Cleaning source categories? The EPA addressed the results of the TR for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP in accordance with section 112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing, a summary of key comments and responses, and the EPA’s rationale for the final decisions. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA’s responses can be found in Response to Comments National Perchloroethylene Air Emissions Standards for Dry VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jan 06, 2025 Jkt 265001 Cleaning Facilities available in the docket. A. Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP? The proposed rule published on December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73207), proposed to require all sources subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, whether new or existing, to be equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers. The TR proposed that existing affected sources would comply with the proposed amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. We estimated in the proposal that no thirdgeneration machines were still in use, therefore, the proposed amendment would have no costs or other impacts. We also proposed a response to the 2009 voluntary remand, stating 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 context, was warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). 2. How did the technology review change for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP? Upon further review and based on public comments, the EPA has determined that our understanding, outlined in our proposal, that all thirdgeneration machines have been retired is not correct. However, since the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP proposal, in 2021 the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) published an updated risk analysis on PCE under section 6(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), finding unreasonable risk with PCE due to unreasonable carcinogenic risk, which triggered a duty for the EPA to promulgate a rule under section 6(a) of TSCA to address such unreasonable risk. In December 2024, OCSPP finalized a comprehensive rule addressing PCE that, among other things, prohibits the use of PCE in dry cleaning with a 10-year phaseout plan (hereafter referred to as the TSCA rule. See, Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA); Final Rule [to be codified at 40 CFR part 751, subpart G. As the EPA explained in the final TSCA rule, the TSCA rule phaseout of PCE use in dry cleaning starts with a prohibition on the industrial or commercial use of PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 1045 PCE in any dry cleaning machine acquired 180 days or later after publication of the final TSCA rule, followed by a prohibition on the industrial or commercial use of PCE in third generation machines three years after publication of the final rule. The final TSCA rule was published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2024 (89 FR 103560). Full implementation of the phaseout will be achieved 10 years after publication of the final TSCA rule with a prohibition on the use of PCE in all dry cleaning and spot cleaning, including in fourth and fifth generation machines, and a prohibition on the manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCE for use in dry cleaning solvent. As a result of the TSCA rule prohibiting use of PCE in dry cleaning with a 10-year phaseout plan, which the EPA explained was consistent with requirements in TSCA section 6(d)(1)(C) and (D) to specify mandatory compliance dates for the start of the phaseout requirements that are as soon as practicable but not later than five years after the final TSCA rule’s promulgation and to specify mandatory compliance dates for full implementation of phaseout requirements that are as soon as practicable, as well as providing a reasonable transition period consistent with TSCA section 6(d)(1)(E), the EPA is finalizing no changes to the CAA NESHAP. Regarding the proposed retrofit of older third generation systems specifically, as the TSCA rule prohibits the use of such machines after three years from its promulgation and prohibits acquiring any new dry cleaning machines that use PCE 180 days after publication of the final TSCA rule, it is unnecessary to additionally require retrofitting of third generation machines separately under the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP. Requiring such retrofitting of third generation machines under the NESHAP could result in their becoming reconstructed new sources, and result in forcing owners and operators into risking violation of the TSCA rule’s prohibition of acquiring new dry cleaning machines that use PCE. 3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what are our responses? Comment: One commenter believes that if the EPA had properly evaluated risk in the 2006 RTR, then the Agency would have phased out PCE completely in that rule, or at least in co-commercial facilities. They disagree with the EPA’s position that the Agency is not obligated to perform risk assessments under CAA E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM 07JAR1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1 1046 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations section 112(f) on area sources. They highlighted ‘‘uncontroverted record evidence showing that the risk from these facilities is 1,000-in-one million’’ and that the proposed controls from the 2006 rule only reduced risk to 175-inone million, which is above the 100-inone million presumed acceptable benchmark used by the EPA is residual risk reviews. The commenter claims ‘‘no reasonable basis’’ to not phase out PCE completely. They assert that alternative solvents can replace PCE without additional costs, that other States and municipalities have banned PCE, and that the EPA banned it for co-residential facilities. They believe that extant bans are a development in practices that should be considered under CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter says the EPA did not explain why costs were unreasonable, nor why limitations of alternative solvents were significant enough to warrant needing PCE. They maintain that the Agency cannot argue that it does not have enough information to support a broader PCE ban since it did not attempt to solicit or collect such information, and the Agency has failed to ‘‘grapple with record evidence undercutting its risk rationale for refusing to require a PCE phaseout at area source dry cleaners.’’ A commenter claimed that in the Agency’s response to comments for the 2006 rule, the EPA states that area sources do not warrant a ban on PCE. The commenter states that the Agency cannot use such a statutory interpretation because the EPA did not mention it in the proposed rule. In addition, a commenter asked that the EPA consider the then-pending PCE TSCA risk evaluation recommendations and any potential new environmental regulations that may impact small business dry cleaning owner/operators. Response: As noted in Section IV.A.2 of this document, the EPA’s OCSPP has separately promulgated a final rule under section 6 of TSCA that prohibits the use of PCE in dry cleaning machines with a 10-year phaseout period for full compliance. The TSCA rule phaseout starts with a prohibition on use of PCE in any dry cleaning machine acquired 180 days or later after the publication of the final TSCA rule, followed by a prohibition on the use of PCE in third generation machines three years after publication. Consequently, the comments objecting to the 2006 rule’s and the 2021 proposal’s not more broadly prohibiting the use of PCE use at dry cleaners are now moot, and it is not necessary to further respond to them. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jan 06, 2025 Jkt 265001 The EPA agrees that appropriate offices within the Agency should collaborate when addressing emission sources controlled under multiple regulations. Although the NESHAP and TSCA rules must meet different obligations and consider different factors, the EPA’s OCSPP coordinated with the Office of Air & Radiation (OAR) in conducting the TSCA rulemaking. Likewise, the EPA’s OAR has coordinated with OCSPP in this NESHAP action, to ensure the rules are consistent and are not unnecessarily duplicative, redundant, or in conflict. Comment: Commenters expressed opposition to the EPA’s proposed compliance deadline of no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule for existing affected sources. Commenters assert that there are many facilities which still operate third generation machines past their typical lifespan. The industry is already suffering from lower demand due to COVID–19 making it harder to afford machine upgrades and/or replacement. Further, supply chain issues combined with lack of in-stock supplies and no domestic manufacturers make it unreasonably difficult to purchase appropriate machines or add-on controls in under six months. One commenter recommended a compliance deadline of at least three years. They justify their position by pointing out that NESHAPs usually allow for up to three years to comply, and that the EPA’s previous amendments to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP allowed a 15-year phaseout of PCE machines from co-residential facilities. The Commenter recommended a three- to-five year compliance timeframe. Response: The EPA acknowledges that our expectation in 2021 that there were no third generation machines in operation was incorrect. However, as noted in Section IV.A.2 of this document, the EPA’s OCSPP has promulgated a rule under the TSCA that prohibits the use of PCE in dry cleaning machines with a 10-year phaseout period, beginning with a prohibition on the use of PCE in any machine acquired 180 days or later after the TSCA rule’s publication and followed by a prohibition on the use of PCE in third generation machines three years after its publication. As a result, we are not additionally finalizing our proposed amendments to the NESHAP to require add-on controls for third generation machines, as the control requirements are no longer necessary. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology review? In 2022, the EPA’s OCSPP published a final revised risk determination on PCE under the TSCA, finding that PCE presents an unreasonable risk to human health under its conditions of use, including in dry cleaning. Under TSCA section 6(a), if the Agency determines through a TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, EPA must by rule apply one or more requirements listed in TSCA section 6(a) to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents such risk. The unreasonable risk is largely driven by factors not traditionally considered in conducting risk reviews for NESHAP, such as onsite worker exposure and dermal exposures to non-air forms of the chemical. The technical and scientific record for the TSCA risk assessment was broader and more comprehensive than the EPA’s proposed 2021 NESHAP amendments. In June 2023, the EPA’s OCSPP proposed a rule under TSCA (87 FR 39085, June 30, 2022) to ban the use of PCE in dry cleaning, subject to a phaseout of 6 months to 10 years for the various types of equipment (88 FR 39652, June 16, 2023). This rule was promulgated as a final rule and contains a ban on the use of PCE that takes effect in 180 days for newly acquired machines and up to 10 years for existing machines. The TSCA rule prohibits the use of PCE in industrial or commercial third generation machines three years after publication of the final rule. As a result of the EPA’s TSCA rule requiring a prohibition on the use of PCE in dry cleaning machines, the EPA has determined it is not necessary to finalize additional changes to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP under the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review for the PCE dry cleaning source categories. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP prescribes a combination of equipment, work practices, and operational requirements. The NESHAP defines major and area sources 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. E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM 07JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations Consequently, a single dry cleaning facility could be comprised of 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 TSCA rule estimated that 6,000 dry cleaners still use PCE. B. What are the air quality, cost, economic impacts, and benefits? As there are no changes to the NESHAP requirements resulting from the final TR, there are no expected air quality, cost, or economic impacts or benefits as a result of this rulemaking. C. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? Because we are not finalizing any changes to the NESHAP as a result of the EPA’s TSCA rule prohibiting the use of PCE in dry cleaning machines, we did not conduct a new analysis of environmental justice for this action. For more information, the methodology and the results of the demographic analysis conducted for the proposed rule are presented in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near the DryCleaning Major and Area Sources, available in the docket for this action (Document ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– 0155–0597). D. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? Because we are not finalizing any changes to the NESHAP as a result of the EPA’s TSCA rule prohibiting the use of PCE in dry cleaning machines, we did not conduct an analysis of children’s environmental health in this action. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1 A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose any new information collection burden. No new information collection is required as part of this final action; owners and operators will continue to keep records and submit required reports to the EPA, or the delegated State regulatory VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jan 06, 2025 Jkt 265001 authority required in the final rule. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR 63 subpart M) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060–0234. The OMB control number for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 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 coinoperated 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. We are not finalizing any new requirements under this action and, therefore, we do not anticipate any small entities to incur costs due to this action. We conclude 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 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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. 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. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments As discussed in the proposed rule, this action has Tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized Tribal PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 1047 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. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of 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 a ‘‘significant energy action’’ because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action does not impact energy supply, distribution, or use. 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 and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. More information can be found in the technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near the Dry-Cleaning Major and Area Sources, available in the docket for E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM 07JAR1 1048 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations this action (Document ID EPA–HQ– OAR–2005–0155–0597). Additionally, the EPA notes that, separately, the TSCA rule is imposing at 10-year phaseout of the use of PCE in dry cleaning. The EPA explained in the TSCA rule that it believes it will likely reduce existing disproportionate and adverse effect on communities with environmental justice concerns. K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Michael S. Regan, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2024–31223 Filed 1–6–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 240304–0068; RTID 0648– XE600] Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. AGENCY: NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) from vessels using jig gear, to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters (m)) length ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jan 06, 2025 Jkt 265001 overall (LOA) using hook-and-line or pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) management area. This action is necessary to allow the A season apportionment of the 2025 total allowable catch of Pacific cod to be harvested. Effective January 2, 2025, through 2,400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Olson, 907–586–7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The A season apportionment of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC specified for vessels using jig gear in the BSAI is 1,067 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024) and inseason adjustment (89 FR 105478, December 27, 2024). The 2025 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 2,525 mt as established by final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024) and inseason adjustment (89 FR 105478, December 27, 2024). The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that jig vessels will not be able to harvest 1,000 mt of the A season apportionment of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(1). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(C), NMFS apportions 1,000 mt of Pacific cod from the A season jig gear apportionment to the annual amount DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 specified for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear. The harvest specifications for 2025 Pacific cod included in final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024) and inseason adjustment (89 FR 105478, December 27, 2024) are revised as follows: 67 mt to the A season apportionment and 779 mt to the annual amount for vessels using jig gear, and 3,525 mt to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear. Classification NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified from jig vessels to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 31, 2024. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: January 2, 2025. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2025–00112 Filed 1–2–25; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM 07JAR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1041-1048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31223]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155; FRL-8391-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV44


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning 
Facilities Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final determination.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the Clean Air Act (CAA) technology 
review (TR) conducted for the commercial and industrial dry cleaning 
facilities using perchloroethylene (PCE) as the cleaning solvent (PCE 
Dry Cleaning) source categories regulated under National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous air Pollutants (NESHAP). This final rule does 
not finalize the changes made at proposal and makes no amendments to 
the current NESHAP given the recently finalized action under the Toxic 
Substance Control Act (TSCA) which has instituted a 10-year phaseout of 
the use of PCE for dry cleaning.

DATES: This action is effective on January 7, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0155. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information 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 form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and 
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Reginald Goodwin, Mail Drop: D243-04, 109 T.W. 
Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone 
number: (919) 541-5313; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this notice the use 
of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' 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
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutants(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

[[Page 1042]]

OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PCE perchloroethylene
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
tpy tons per year
TR technology review
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Background information. On December 27, 2021, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for 
Dry Cleaning Facilities NESHAP (hereafter referred to as the PCE Dry 
Cleaning NESHAP) based on our technology review (TR). In this action, 
we are finalizing decisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more 
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and 
provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public 
comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is 
available in the Response to Comments National Perchloroethylene Air 
Emissions Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities document, which is 
available in the Docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0155).
    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?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the PCE Dry Cleaning source categories and how does 
the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from these source categories?
    C. What changes did we propose for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP 
in our December 27, 2021, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP?
    A. Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality, cost, economic impacts, and 
benefits?
    C. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    D. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 
and Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
    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
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                  Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Source Category and NESHAP                 NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Cleaning.................................     812310, 812320, 812332
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    This list of categories and NAICS codes is not intended to be 
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the 
entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source 
categories listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you 
should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If 
you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of 
this NESHAP, please contact the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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 final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same 
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information 
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites 
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the court) by March 10, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

[[Page 1043]]

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 112 
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 
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 final rule. 
The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory 
sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to 
implement these statutory requirements.
    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 generally 
available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) 
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 TR 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 TR 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) or (h). Louisiana Environmental Action Network 
(LEAN) v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

B. What are the PCE Dry Cleaning source categories and how does the 
NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from these source categories?

    The EPA promulgated the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP on 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. The source 
categories covered by these MACT and GACT standards currently include 
all PCE dry cleaning facilities in the U.S.
    Dry cleaning is any cleaning process for clothing using a solvent 
other than water. Perchloroethylene (PCE), also known as perc, 
tetrachloroethene and tetrachloroethylene, is widely used in the 
industry. Establishments may also offer specialty cleaning services for 
garments and textiles. The 1993 NESHAP exempted coin-operated dry 
cleaning machines.
    There are two types of PCE dry cleaning machines: 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.
1. Transfer Machines (First Generation)
    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.
2. Dry-to-Dry Machines (Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Generation)
    Dry-to-dry machines wash, extract, and dry the articles in a single 
machine. Eliminating the transfer step results in much lower emissions.
    a. ``Second generation'' dry-to-dry machines were vented to the 
atmosphere from the machine-washing drum at the time that the machine 
is opened following the drying cycle.
    b. ``Third generation'' dry-to-dry machines operated the first 
``closed-loop'' machines. This is the first generation where emissions 
were routed to a refrigerated condenser.
    c. ``Fourth generation'' dry-to-dry machines (technology from the 
early 1990s) are closed-loop systems using the secondary controls 
refrigerated condenser(s) and a carbon adsorption unit(s). The 
condenser is a vapor recovery system, condensing PCE by cooling the 
gas-vapor stream. The air remaining at the end of the cycle passes

[[Page 1044]]

through a carbon adsorber--a bed of activated carbon into which the 
air-PCE gas-vapor stream is routed--that removes PCE from the gas-vapor 
stream prior to door opening. The implementation of both the condenser 
and adsorber offers greater emissions reductions over a dry-to-dry 
machine with only a refrigerated condenser, reducing PCE concentration 
in the air remaining in the machine once the cleaning cycle is complete 
instead of allowing ventilation or release at the end of the dry 
cleaning cycle.
    d. ``Fifth generation'' machines (technology from the late 1990s) 
have the same control technology as fourth generation machines, but are 
also equipped with an inductive fan, internal solvent vapor monitoring 
devices (sensor) and interlock (lockout) devices not allowing access to 
the machine until solvent vapor concentrations are below 300 ppm.
    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 published 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 were a subset of commercial operations and 
included dry cleaning operations located in buildings in which people 
reside. Co-residential facilities were generally found in urban areas 
where commercial and residential occupancy occur in a single building, 
but these facilities are no longer allowed to operate based on the 
NESHAP requirements.
    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 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 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 leak detection and repair (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 non-vented dry-to-dry machines with a refrigerated 
condenser and secondary carbon adsorber.
     Use a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or PCE gas analyzer 
to detect PCE leaks, repair the leaks, and maintain records.
    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 the 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 the 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 for the 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 
finalizing our response to the voluntary remand as part of this final 
rule making.

C. What changes did we propose for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP in our 
December 27, 2021, proposal?

    On December 27, 2021, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP that took into 
consideration the TR analyses. We

[[Page 1045]]

proposed to require that all PCE dry to dry machines at existing major 
and areas sources have both refrigerated condensers and carbon 
adsorbers as secondary controls. At the time this action was proposed, 
the available data indicated that no third-generation machines were 
still in use and since fourth and fifth generation machines already use 
both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers, the proposed 
amendment would have no costs or economic impacts. We also proposed a 
response to the 2009 voluntary remand, stating that the 2006 RTR was 
appropriate and proposed no changes from how we addressed the PCE ban 
and phaseout for co-residential sources.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the TR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP?

    We are finalizing a determination that there are no necessary 
revisions to the NESHAP after considering developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies. We note that, as discussed in 
section IV of this document, a separate regulatory action under TSCA 
has finalized a 10-year phaseout of the use of PCE in dry cleaning. 
Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the currently promulgated 
NESHAP standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Further, in response to 
the voluntary remand of the 2006 RTR, we are likewise concluding that 
no further evaluation of the NESHAP's approach to addressing the PCE 
ban and phaseout for co-residential sources in the 2006 RTR is 
warranted, considering the EPA's recent more comprehensive prohibition 
of the use of PCE in dry cleaning and spot cleaning under TSCA.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the PCE Dry Cleaning source categories?

    The EPA addressed the results of the TR for the PCE Dry Cleaning 
NESHAP in accordance with section 112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 
This section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are 
finalizing, a summary of key comments and responses, and the EPA's 
rationale for the final decisions. For all comments not discussed in 
this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found 
in Response to Comments National Perchloroethylene Air Emissions 
Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities available in the docket.

A. Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the PCE 
Dry Cleaning NESHAP?
    The proposed rule published on December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73207), 
proposed to require all sources subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, 
whether new or existing, to be equipped with refrigerated condensers 
and carbon adsorbers. The TR proposed that existing affected sources 
would comply with the proposed amendments in this rulemaking no later 
than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. We estimated 
in the proposal that no third-generation machines were still in use, 
therefore, the proposed amendment would have no costs or other impacts.
    We also proposed a response to the 2009 voluntary remand, stating 
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 context, 
was warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6).
2. How did the technology review change for the PCE Dry Cleaning 
NESHAP?
    Upon further review and based on public comments, the EPA has 
determined that our understanding, outlined in our proposal, that all 
third-generation machines have been retired is not correct. However, 
since the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP proposal, in 2021 the EPA's Office of 
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) published an updated 
risk analysis on PCE under section 6(b) of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act (TSCA), finding unreasonable risk with PCE due to unreasonable 
carcinogenic risk, which triggered a duty for the EPA to promulgate a 
rule under section 6(a) of TSCA to address such unreasonable risk. In 
December 2024, OCSPP finalized a comprehensive rule addressing PCE 
that, among other things, prohibits the use of PCE in dry cleaning with 
a 10-year phaseout plan (hereafter referred to as the TSCA rule. See, 
Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation under the Toxics Substances Control 
Act (TSCA); Final Rule [to be codified at 40 CFR part 751, subpart G. 
As the EPA explained in the final TSCA rule, the TSCA rule phaseout of 
PCE use in dry cleaning starts with a prohibition on the industrial or 
commercial use of PCE in any dry cleaning machine acquired 180 days or 
later after publication of the final TSCA rule, followed by a 
prohibition on the industrial or commercial use of PCE in third 
generation machines three years after publication of the final rule. 
The final TSCA rule was published in the Federal Register on December 
18, 2024 (89 FR 103560). Full implementation of the phaseout will be 
achieved 10 years after publication of the final TSCA rule with a 
prohibition on the use of PCE in all dry cleaning and spot cleaning, 
including in fourth and fifth generation machines, and a prohibition on 
the manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCE for 
use in dry cleaning solvent.
    As a result of the TSCA rule prohibiting use of PCE in dry cleaning 
with a 10-year phaseout plan, which the EPA explained was consistent 
with requirements in TSCA section 6(d)(1)(C) and (D) to specify 
mandatory compliance dates for the start of the phaseout requirements 
that are as soon as practicable but not later than five years after the 
final TSCA rule's promulgation and to specify mandatory compliance 
dates for full implementation of phaseout requirements that are as soon 
as practicable, as well as providing a reasonable transition period 
consistent with TSCA section 6(d)(1)(E), the EPA is finalizing no 
changes to the CAA NESHAP. Regarding the proposed retrofit of older 
third generation systems specifically, as the TSCA rule prohibits the 
use of such machines after three years from its promulgation and 
prohibits acquiring any new dry cleaning machines that use PCE 180 days 
after publication of the final TSCA rule, it is unnecessary to 
additionally require retrofitting of third generation machines 
separately under the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP. Requiring such 
retrofitting of third generation machines under the NESHAP could result 
in their becoming reconstructed new sources, and result in forcing 
owners and operators into risking violation of the TSCA rule's 
prohibition of acquiring new dry cleaning machines that use PCE.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter believes that if the EPA had properly 
evaluated risk in the 2006 RTR, then the Agency would have phased out 
PCE completely in that rule, or at least in co-commercial facilities. 
They disagree with the EPA's position that the Agency is not obligated 
to perform risk assessments under CAA

[[Page 1046]]

section 112(f) on area sources. They highlighted ``uncontroverted 
record evidence showing that the risk from these facilities is 1,000-
in-one million'' and that the proposed controls from the 2006 rule only 
reduced risk to 175-in-one million, which is above the 100-in-one 
million presumed acceptable benchmark used by the EPA is residual risk 
reviews.
    The commenter claims ``no reasonable basis'' to not phase out PCE 
completely. They assert that alternative solvents can replace PCE 
without additional costs, that other States and municipalities have 
banned PCE, and that the EPA banned it for co-residential facilities. 
They believe that extant bans are a development in practices that 
should be considered under CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter says 
the EPA did not explain why costs were unreasonable, nor why 
limitations of alternative solvents were significant enough to warrant 
needing PCE. They maintain that the Agency cannot argue that it does 
not have enough information to support a broader PCE ban since it did 
not attempt to solicit or collect such information, and the Agency has 
failed to ``grapple with record evidence undercutting its risk 
rationale for refusing to require a PCE phaseout at area source dry 
cleaners.''
    A commenter claimed that in the Agency's response to comments for 
the 2006 rule, the EPA states that area sources do not warrant a ban on 
PCE. The commenter states that the Agency cannot use such a statutory 
interpretation because the EPA did not mention it in the proposed rule.
    In addition, a commenter asked that the EPA consider the then-
pending PCE TSCA risk evaluation recommendations and any potential new 
environmental regulations that may impact small business dry cleaning 
owner/operators.
    Response: As noted in Section IV.A.2 of this document, the EPA's 
OCSPP has separately promulgated a final rule under section 6 of TSCA 
that prohibits the use of PCE in dry cleaning machines with a 10-year 
phaseout period for full compliance. The TSCA rule phaseout starts with 
a prohibition on use of PCE in any dry cleaning machine acquired 180 
days or later after the publication of the final TSCA rule, followed by 
a prohibition on the use of PCE in third generation machines three 
years after publication. Consequently, the comments objecting to the 
2006 rule's and the 2021 proposal's not more broadly prohibiting the 
use of PCE use at dry cleaners are now moot, and it is not necessary to 
further respond to them.
    The EPA agrees that appropriate offices within the Agency should 
collaborate when addressing emission sources controlled under multiple 
regulations. Although the NESHAP and TSCA rules must meet different 
obligations and consider different factors, the EPA's OCSPP coordinated 
with the Office of Air & Radiation (OAR) in conducting the TSCA 
rulemaking. Likewise, the EPA's OAR has coordinated with OCSPP in this 
NESHAP action, to ensure the rules are consistent and are not 
unnecessarily duplicative, redundant, or in conflict.
    Comment: Commenters expressed opposition to the EPA's proposed 
compliance deadline of no later than 180 days after the effective date 
of the final rule for existing affected sources.
    Commenters assert that there are many facilities which still 
operate third generation machines past their typical lifespan. The 
industry is already suffering from lower demand due to COVID-19 making 
it harder to afford machine upgrades and/or replacement. Further, 
supply chain issues combined with lack of in-stock supplies and no 
domestic manufacturers make it unreasonably difficult to purchase 
appropriate machines or add-on controls in under six months.
    One commenter recommended a compliance deadline of at least three 
years. They justify their position by pointing out that NESHAPs usually 
allow for up to three years to comply, and that the EPA's previous 
amendments to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP allowed a 15-year phaseout of 
PCE machines from co-residential facilities. The Commenter recommended 
a three- to-five year compliance timeframe.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges that our expectation in 2021 that 
there were no third generation machines in operation was incorrect. 
However, as noted in Section IV.A.2 of this document, the EPA's OCSPP 
has promulgated a rule under the TSCA that prohibits the use of PCE in 
dry cleaning machines with a 10-year phaseout period, beginning with a 
prohibition on the use of PCE in any machine acquired 180 days or later 
after the TSCA rule's publication and followed by a prohibition on the 
use of PCE in third generation machines three years after its 
publication. As a result, we are not additionally finalizing our 
proposed amendments to the NESHAP to require add-on controls for third 
generation machines, as the control requirements are no longer 
necessary.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    In 2022, the EPA's OCSPP published a final revised risk 
determination on PCE under the TSCA, finding that PCE presents an 
unreasonable risk to human health under its conditions of use, 
including in dry cleaning. Under TSCA section 6(a), if the Agency 
determines through a TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a chemical 
substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
environment, EPA must by rule apply one or more requirements listed in 
TSCA section 6(a) to the extent necessary so that the chemical 
substance or mixture no longer presents such risk. The unreasonable 
risk is largely driven by factors not traditionally considered in 
conducting risk reviews for NESHAP, such as onsite worker exposure and 
dermal exposures to non-air forms of the chemical. The technical and 
scientific record for the TSCA risk assessment was broader and more 
comprehensive than the EPA's proposed 2021 NESHAP amendments.
    In June 2023, the EPA's OCSPP proposed a rule under TSCA (87 FR 
39085, June 30, 2022) to ban the use of PCE in dry cleaning, subject to 
a phaseout of 6 months to 10 years for the various types of equipment 
(88 FR 39652, June 16, 2023). This rule was promulgated as a final rule 
and contains a ban on the use of PCE that takes effect in 180 days for 
newly acquired machines and up to 10 years for existing machines. The 
TSCA rule prohibits the use of PCE in industrial or commercial third 
generation machines three years after publication of the final rule.
    As a result of the EPA's TSCA rule requiring a prohibition on the 
use of PCE in dry cleaning machines, the EPA has determined it is not 
necessary to finalize additional changes to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP 
under the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review for the PCE dry 
cleaning source categories.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP prescribes a combination of equipment, 
work practices, and operational requirements. The NESHAP defines major 
and area sources 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.

[[Page 1047]]

Consequently, a single dry cleaning facility could be comprised of 
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 TSCA rule estimated that 6,000 dry cleaners still use PCE.

B. What are the air quality, cost, economic impacts, and benefits?

    As there are no changes to the NESHAP requirements resulting from 
the final TR, there are no expected air quality, cost, or economic 
impacts or benefits as a result of this rulemaking.

C. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Because we are not finalizing any changes to the NESHAP as a result 
of the EPA's TSCA rule prohibiting the use of PCE in dry cleaning 
machines, we did not conduct a new analysis of environmental justice 
for this action. For more information, the methodology and the results 
of the demographic analysis conducted for the proposed rule are 
presented in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near the Dry-Cleaning Major and Area Sources, 
available in the docket for this action (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-
0155-0597).

D. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    Because we are not finalizing any changes to the NESHAP as a result 
of the EPA's TSCA rule prohibiting the use of PCE in dry cleaning 
machines, we did not conduct an analysis of children's environmental 
health in this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was 
therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
No new information collection is required as part of this final action; 
owners and operators will continue to keep records and submit required 
reports to the EPA, or the delegated State regulatory authority 
required in the final rule. However, the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection 
requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR 63 subpart 
M) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0234. The OMB control 
number for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

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. We are not finalizing any new 
requirements under this action and, therefore, we do not anticipate any 
small entities to incur costs due to this action. We conclude 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 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. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the 
private sector.

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.

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

    As discussed in the proposed rule, 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.

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

    Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an 
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation 
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the 
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 
13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 
3(f)(1) of 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 a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This action does not impact energy 
supply, distribution, or use.

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 and 
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All

    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to 
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns.
    The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new 
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental 
justice concerns. More information can be found in the technical 
report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near the 
Dry-Cleaning Major and Area Sources, available in the docket for

[[Page 1048]]

this action (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155-0597). Additionally, the 
EPA notes that, separately, the TSCA rule is imposing at 10-year 
phaseout of the use of PCE in dry cleaning. The EPA explained in the 
TSCA rule that it believes it will likely reduce existing 
disproportionate and adverse effect on communities with environmental 
justice concerns.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-31223 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.