Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1041 

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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

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: 

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 

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: 

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: 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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 

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-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. 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 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-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
1044 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

1Estimated 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). 

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: 

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: 

• 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 

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 


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. 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 

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 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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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. 

DATES: 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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1