FR 2024-31223

Commentary

The recent document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalizes the agency's technology review under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for perchloroethylene (PCE) used in dry cleaning facilities. Although this document includes a comprehensive discussion on dry cleaning facilities using PCE as a solvent, it concludes without making any changes to the current National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). This decision aligns with the recently finalized Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule, which sets a 10-year phaseout for the use of PCE in dry cleaning. This phaseout begins with a ban on purchasing new PCE dry cleaning machines, eventually leading to a complete phaseout by a specified future date.

General Summary

The focus of this EPA document is the completion of a technology review for PCE in dry cleaning, which explores whether new technological developments necessitate updates to existing regulations. The EPA concludes there is no need to amend current emissions standards because the TSCA has already set a pathway for phasing out PCE by slowly eliminating its use in dry cleaning over the next decade. By allowing this separate regulatory framework to resolve the concerns around PCE use, the EPA opted not to pursue additional regulatory measures, citing that changes are unnecessary given the upcoming full phaseout.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One major concern with the document is its heavy reliance on technical jargon and acronyms, which may make it difficult for average readers to interpret the information. For example, acronyms like NESHAP and TSCA are used with limited explanation or context, which can hinder public understanding. Furthermore, while the phaseout plan contours are clarified, it does not specify an exact end year, which could create confusion about the timeline for stakeholders needing to comply with the transition away from PCE.

Additionally, the document's rationale for not making immediate changes to emission standards based on public comments received during the proposal phase may benefit from more transparency. Though it mentions the complementary role of the TSCA rule, the interaction between these regulations and how they collectively address the identified risks could be better explained.

Public Impact

For the public, particularly communities residing near dry cleaning operations, the document implies that hazardous air pollutants related to PCE use will eventually be reduced following the TSCA's gradual restriction plan. The EPA's approach may alleviate health concerns associated with emissions over the long term. However, in the short term, no new protections or emission controls will be implemented.

Impact on Stakeholders

The EPA's decision not to make immediate changes under NESHAP will likely be seen as favorable by small business owners, especially those operating dry cleaning facilities. Such entities may have concerns about the financial implications of rapidly shifting technologies. Delaying any new regulations aside from the standard laid out by TSCA affords these businesses a grace period to adjust and transition, potentially smoothing operational and financial burdens.

On the other hand, advocacy groups or individuals primarily focused on environmental health may view this lack of immediate regulatory action as a missed opportunity to proactively address hazardous emissions. Given that certain restrictions on PCE are effectively delayed for several years, concerns about community health and safety in areas with significant concentrations of dry cleaning facilities might persist until the TSCA regulations are fully realized.

In sum, while no new immediate changes will take place due to this finalization, the broader effect anticipates a future with fewer PCE emissions, suggesting a positive prospective impact on community health balanced against a need for clarity and greater transparency in regulatory processes.

The document concerning the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for dry cleaning facilities provides limited financial details, with a couple of notable exceptions. The information contained in the document primarily outlines the economic parameters applicable under regulatory standards and acts, specifically regarding small businesses and broad fiscal impacts.

In discussing the economic definitions of small businesses, the document specifies the thresholds for different industry classifications under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Small businesses in the sectors affected by this rule are defined as having annual revenues of $8.0 million, $6.0 million, and $41.5 million, depending on the specific industry code. This classification is crucial for determining how the rule impacts small business entities and whether they can absorb any compliance-related costs effectively.

Additionally, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) section states that this decision does not impose any new mandates with an annual expenditure of $100 million or more on local, state, or tribal governments, nor does it uniquely affect small governments. This implies that the regulatory changes, or the decision not to implement certain proposed changes, do not require these entities to incur significant new spending or financial burdens.

These financial references are aligned with part of the issues noted in the document wherein there's a lack of detailed cost analysis. Stakeholders might expect a comprehensive assessment detailing how maintaining the current standards would financially impact the industries involved, especially since no changes were finalized. The absence of a detailed cost or financial impact analysis may pose challenges for businesses trying to budget for potential future equipment upgrades or changes resulting from overlapping regulations like the TSCA.

The document recognizes the economic pressures faced by small entities but remains vague concerning the broader economic impacts of not implementing proposed NESHAP changes. This approach might reflect the simultaneous existence of overlapping legal frameworks, such as the TSCA, which has independently initiated a phaseout of a critical solvent in the industry—perchloroethylene (PCE). Understanding how these overlapping regulations impact financial planning and business operations is critical for smaller operators already navigating tight margins within these defined financial parameters.