FR 2024-31464

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a final rule updating the list of chemicals subject to reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). This update mandates the inclusion of nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) beginning with the 2025 reporting year. These additions stem from a legislative requirement under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020 and reflect an ongoing effort to monitor and manage PFAS more effectively.

The rule, effective from February 5, 2025, addresses public and governmental needs for greater transparency regarding PFAS releases. By expanding the TRI, the EPA seeks to enhance community awareness about environmental health and potentially improve public safety measures against pollutants.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The document introduces various complexities, particularly in its legal and technical language, which may be difficult for the general public to fully grasp. This could hinder community engagement and understanding of their environmental conditions. Additionally, the criteria for adding PFAS to the TRI list involve specific regulatory processes that may not be easily accessible to non-specialists.

Moreover, the document outlines multiple exemptions in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, which could lead to confusion for industries trying to determine their reporting obligations. This ambiguity may require businesses to seek further clarification, potentially leading to compliance challenges.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, this rule could bring increased awareness of PFAS releases in their communities, encouraging more informed decision-making regarding environmental health. Access to TRI data allows individuals to better understand potential exposure risks and advocate for local environmental protections or interventions.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Industries falling under the specified NAICS codes will face additional reporting responsibilities, which could increase operational costs due to the need for data collection and compliance measures. However, these requirements also provide an opportunity for industries to demonstrate environmental commitment and transparency, potentially enhancing their reputation with environmentally conscious consumers.

Environmental advocacy groups may view this rule as a positive step towards greater accountability and protection of public health from chemical hazards. However, there is also a concern about the rule's potential indirect effects on small governments and Indigenous communities, as the document presently assumes limited impact on these groups without extensive analysis.

In summary, while the EPA's rule represents progress in monitoring PFAS and promoting environmental transparency, it raises several interpretative and practical issues that may require further elucidation to ensure effective implementation and stakeholder compliance.

The document mentions a financial reference related to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), highlighting that the action "does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more." This statement provides important context for understanding the financial impact of the rule.

Under the UMRA, if a mandate costs $100 million or more, it typically requires a more thorough review to assess how this financial burden could impact various entities, including state, local, or tribal governments. In this case, the action explicitly states it will not meet this financial threshold, indicating that the rule is not expected to impose significant financial obligations on these governments or the private sector. This is crucial information for small governments and tribal authorities as it suggests the rule's financial implications are minimal and should not necessitate additional financial planning or legislative adaptations from these entities.

This financial stipulation relates to one of the identified issues: the document's assumption that the rule will not affect small governments or Indian Tribes. While it presumes no significant direct financial impact, the broader context of implementing and complying with such regulations might still indirectly affect small governments. These impacts, although not immediately apparent through direct financial costs, could include administrative expenses, staff training, or monitoring and reporting requirements related to PFAS.

Thus, while the primary assertion is that there's no significant financial burden due to the absence of a large unfunded mandate, it still necessitates a consideration of indirect effects. The rule's broader implications on these communities might involve non-financial resources, such as labor or administrative workflows, which should be considered alongside direct costs. This underscores an important aspect of such regulatory actions where financial impacts, while not imposed directly through mandates, can still emerge through other less-visible channels.