Proposed Rule2024-27594
Air Plan Approval; New York; Knowlton Technologies LLC
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 26, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the State of New York's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) related to a Source-specific SIP (SSSIP) revision for Knowlton Technologies LLC, located at 213 Factory Street, Watertown, New York (the Facility). The EPA is proposing to find that the control options in this SSSIP revision implement Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) with respect to volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the relevant Facility sources, which are identified as two underground storage tanks holding virgin methanol. This SSSIP revision is intended to implement VOC RACT for the relevant Facility sources in accordance with the requirements for implementation of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. This proposed action will not interfere with ozone NAAQS requirements and meets all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 93239-93243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27594]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2024-0042; FRL 12249-01-R2]
Air Plan Approval; New York; Knowlton Technologies LLC
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the State of New York's State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
related to a Source-specific SIP (SSSIP) revision for Knowlton
Technologies LLC, located at 213 Factory Street, Watertown, New York
(the Facility). The EPA is proposing to find that the control options
in this SSSIP revision implement Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) with respect to volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from the relevant Facility sources, which are identified as
two underground storage tanks holding virgin methanol. This SSSIP
revision is intended to implement VOC RACT for the relevant Facility
sources in accordance with the requirements for implementation of the
2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. This proposed action will not interfere with
ozone NAAQS requirements and meets all applicable requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 10, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2024-0042, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) 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 electronically through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, such as the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
[[Page 93240]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3565, or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dab6b5b4bdb5f4b6b3b4bebb9abfaabbf4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e98586878e86c78580878d88a98c9988c78e869f">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information on regulatory
background and the EPA's technical findings relating to the Facility
RACT, the reader can refer to the Technical Support Document (TSD) that
is contained in the EPA docket assigned to this Federal Register
document.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The EPA's Evaluation of New York's Submission and RACT Analysis
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Ground Level Ozone Formation
Ground level ozone is predominantly a secondary air pollutant
created by chemical reactions that occur when ozone precursors,
including nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC), chemically react in the presence of sunlight.\1\
Emissions from industrial facilities are anthropogenic sources of ozone
precursors. The potential for ground-level ozone formation tends to be
highest during months with warmer temperatures and stagnant air masses.
Ozone levels are thus generally higher during the summer months, which
is often referred to as ``the ozone season.'' In New York, the ozone
season is generally considered to be between April 15 and October 15,
while the non-ozone season is generally considered to be between
October 16 and April 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Primary standards provide public health protection,
including protecting the health of ``sensitive'' populations such as
asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide
public welfare protection, including protection against decreased
visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone Nonattainment
A geographic area of the United States that is not meeting the
primary or secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
ozone is described as a nonattainment area. Nonattainment areas are
classified as either Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme.
With respect to this proposed action, there are two relevant ozone
NAAQS standards. First, on March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a
revision to the ozone NAAQS, setting both the primary and secondary
standards at 0.075 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time
frame (2008 8-hour Ozone Standard). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Second, on October 1, 2015, the EPA lowered these standards to 0.070
ppm averaged over an 8-hour time frame (2015 8-hour Ozone Standard).
See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
The State of New York has two ozone nonattainment areas: (1)
Jamestown, and (2) the New York Metro Area,\2\ consisting of the Bronx
County, Kings County, Nassau County, New York County, Queens County,
Richmond County, Rockland County, Suffolk County, Westchester County.
Under CAA section 184, the State of New York is located within the
Ozone Transport Region (OTR), which means that it is subject to
statewide RACT requirements. This Facility is not located in an ozone
nonattainment area, but it is still required to implement RACT because
it is located within the OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The New York Metro Area is part of the greater nonattainment
area New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal RACT Requirements
RACT is defined as the lowest emission limit that a source is
capable of meeting through the application of control technology that
is reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility. The CAA section 182, Plan Submissions and Requirements,
requires States with ozone nonattainment areas to include in their
statewide SIPs, among other things, provisions to require the
implementation of RACT. CAA section 184(b)(2) sets forth the
requirement to establish control measures to implement RACT for major
sources of VOC located in the OTR. The State of New York is located
within the OTR, and thus the State is required to implement RACT for
all major sources of VOC within the State. RACT for a particular source
is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the technological
and economic circumstances of the individual source.
NYSDEC RACT Requirements
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) RACT regulations require applicable facilities to meet certain
requirements, referred to as ``presumptive RACT requirements.'' These
presumptive requirements generally require sources to implement
emission limits, control efficiency requirements, specific control
technologies, averaging plans, and/or fuel/raw material switching
practices. In some instances, the presumptive RACT requirements may not
be technologically or economically feasible for a certain source, and
the State can make a Source-specific RACT determination, which is
submitted to the EPA as a SSSIP. The SSSIP should include the
facility's RACT plan that demonstrates how the facility will implement
RACT. The SSSIP will also include the applicable CAA title V operating
permit conditions that address RACT requirements. These permit
conditions for the Facility will become federally enforceable upon the
EPA approval of the SSSIP.
Under existing NYSDEC RACT regulations, facilities are required to
assess all technologically feasible control options that meet the
State's cost threshold. The cost threshold for NYSDEC RACT requirements
is found under NYSDEC 2013 policy, ``DAR-20 Economic and Technical
Analysis for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT).'' Under
this policy, facilities must consider in their RACT determinations
control technologies that remove VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> emissions up to
a certain cost threshold, expressed in a dollar amount per ton of VOC
or NO<INF>X</INF> removed, which includes an inflation-adjusted
economic threshold.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The DAR-20 cost threshold is based on 1994 dollars. State of
New York relies on the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics inflationary calculator to adjust the RACT economic
feasibility threshold over time for inflation. See <a href="https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm">https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The EPA's Evaluation of New York's SSSIP Revision and RACT Analysis
This action relates to a SSSIP revision that concerns a paper
manufacturer for specialty papers, automotive filter, and friction
papers (the Facility). The sources at issue in this action are the
Facility's two 10,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) used to
store and supply virgin methanol to the solvent saturator process line
as part of the manufacturing process. NYSDEC RACT regulations establish
RACT requirements for this source in 6 NYCRR part 212, ``Process
Operations,'' subpart 212-3, ``Reasonably Available Control Technology
for Major Facilities,'' last approved into New York's SIP by the EPA on
October 1, 2021. See 87 FR 54375 (October 1, 2021). However, as
explained above, the NYSDEC RACT regulations allow Source-specific RACT
determinations if the presumptive RACT requirements are not
technologically or economically feasible; such Source-specific
determinations must be submitted to the EPA as a SSSIP.
[[Page 93241]]
This SSSIP was submitted to EPA by NYSDEC on February 22, 2023, and
it replaces and withdraws the SSSIP that was submitted by the State on
September 16, 2008. In this SSSIP submittal, the EPA has reviewed the
RACT determination for the USTs for consistency with the CAA and the
EPA regulations, as interpreted through EPA actions and guidance.
The intended effect of this Source-specific SIP revision is to
establish an emission limit for the USTs that are not covered by other
New York Source-specific RACT regulations, and therefore must follow 6
NYCRR part 212 as a process operation.\4\ The USTs are considered a
process operation because they: (1) Store and supply virgin methanol to
the solvent saturator process line that is part of the paper
manufacturing process; (2) store virgin methanol without changing the
material makeup; and (3) are equipped with a vent that emits to the
outdoor atmosphere.\5\ The tanks therefore meet the definition of
process operation because they are part of a manufacturing process in
which materials are stored without changing the materials, the storage
system is equipped with a vent and is non-mobile, and the tanks emit
air contaminants to the outdoor atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Under 6 NYCRR part 212, Definitions (18), ``Process
operation.'' Any industrial, institutional, commercial,
agricultural, or other activity, operation, manufacture or treatment
in which chemical, biological and/or physical properties of the
material or materials are changed, or in which the material(s) is
conveyed or stored without changing the material(s) if the
conveyance or storage system is equipped with a vent(s) and is non-
mobile, and that emits air contaminants to the outdoor atmosphere. A
process operation does not include an open fire, operation of a
combustion installation, or incineration of refuse other than by-
products or wastes from a process operation(s).
\5\ Found in 6 NYCRR part 212-1.2(b)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to determine through this SSSIP action that
the VOC RACT emission limit submitted by the State in this SSSIP for
the USTs is the lowest emission limit with the application of control
technology that is reasonably available given technological and
economic feasibility considerations. The respective VOC RACT emission
limit is contained in the Facility's title V operating permit, 6-2218-
00017/00009, under Condition 32, emission unit 1-TANKS, issued by the
State on December 27, 2022, and expires on December 26, 2027. Condition
32 is being incorporated into the SIP and includes monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for the proposed UST
throughput measures further described in EPA RACT Analysis below and in
section IV.
The Facility submitted a RACT plan, dated March 2022, for the
emission unit and NYSDEC reviewed and approved the emission limit as
adequately implementing RACT for the source. NYSDEC then submitted the
Source-specific SIP revision package at issue in this action for EPA
approval, and the EPA is proposing to approve the respective emission
limit as implementing RACT for this source. This would make the
emission limit federally enforceable.
EPA RACT Analysis
The following is a summary of the EPA's analysis of how the
proposed VOC emission limit implements RACT for emission unit 1-TANKS
that represent two 10,000-gallon USTs.
The Facility's two 10,000-gallon USTs store and supply virgin
methanol to the solvent saturator process line. As described above, the
USTs are characterized as a process operation under 6 NYCRR part 212,
``Process Operations.'' Since the Facility-wide potential to emit (PTE)
is greater than 50 tons of VOC per year, the USTs must implement a VOC
removal efficiency of at least 81 percent when equipped with capture
system and control device found in NYSDEC RACT regulations under 6
NYCRR part 212-3.1(c)(4)(i).\6\ The USTs contribute to the Facility's
estimated PTE of 0.126 ton (252 pounds) of VOC per year. The filling
operation of the methanol to the USTs has an Emission Rate Potential
(ERP) of 3.33 pounds per hour (252 pounds/year). The ERP was calculated
by the Facility using maximum fill rate of 80 gallons per minute and
the maximum time for filling one tank to be filled at 1 hour.\7\ When
the ERP is greater than 3.00 pounds per hour, under 6 NYCRR subpart
212-3.1(c)(1), the emission source must implement RACT. Furthermore,
pursuant to 6 NYCRR part 212-3.1(c)(4)(iii), NYSDEC may ``accept a
lesser degree of control'' upon satisfactorily demonstrating RACT as an
alternate limit when there is no capture system or control device. The
Facility has no capture system or control devices because currently
none have been identified that are both technically feasible and cost
effective. As a result, a RACT analysis must demonstrate an alternate
emission limit to comprise RACT and a RACT variance can be requested
pursuant to 6 NYCRR part 212-3.1(c)(4)(iii). Such a RACT variance can
be approved if supported by a RACT analysis and submitted to the EPA
for review as a SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ New York RACT regulation 6 NYCRR subpart 212-3.1(a)(2)
applies because the Facility is located outside the listed New York
counties and has a potential to emit VOC greater than 50 tons per
year.
\7\ Since emission point TANK 1 includes two USTs and only one
UST is filled at a time, the EPA estimates 1 hour fill time per
tank. See, RACT Plan, Section 1.3, Emission Point Description,
Section 3. Baseline Emissions, and Table C1, Baseline Emission Point
Parameters Emission Point TANK1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Facility's RACT analysis demonstrates that no VOC control
technologies are technologically and economically feasible other than
the control of VOC emissions during filling operations and monitoring
the methanol delivery to ensure the operation of the USTs are staying
below the throughput limit in permit Condition 32. As stated in permit
Condition 32, the Facility must continue to investigate VOC RACT
strategies, including an evaluation of the possibility of
reformulation, abatement technology and/or process modification, and
submit an updated VOC RACT demonstration as part of its title V renewal
application. Title V permits are renewed every 5 years.
The USTs generate VOC emissions during filling operations by vapor
displacement. Vapor displacement is a normal process that occurs during
tank filling when a volume of vapor-laden air (e.g., methanol gases) is
displaced that is equal to the volume of liquid (e.g., methanol) that
is added to the tank. Vapor displacement occurs so that the pressure in
the tank is constant. To control the amount of VOC emissions generated
during vapor displacement, a throughput limit can be established
through a permit condition. Throughput is the total volume of methanol
that is loaded to or dispensed from the USTs. Methanol delivery from
the supplier's tanker truck to the USTs, as well as the methanol stored
in the USTs that is used by the Facility, are controlled by limiting
the throughput. In addition, the two USTs are equipped with one fill
port to allow only one tank to be filled at a time which limits the VOC
emissions during filling operations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ RACT plan, Appendix B, Section 2. Figure 1 identify the
outside of the tanks building where the fill port is located. The
fill port is how the methanol is delivered to the tank. Figure 2
identifies the inside of the tanks building and the location of the
methanol fill line that has a valve. The tanker truck operator must
go inside the tanks building and manually control the valve before
directing the methanol to either tank 1 or tank 2, one tank at a
time. Deliveries of methanol are monitored to ensure the permitted
throughput is not exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYSDEC reviewed the RACT analysis and determined that the alternate
emission limit implements RACT for the USTs. Specifically, NYSDEC
approved the following case-by-case emission limit and requirements:
(1) The VOC emissions are limited by restricting the methanol
throughput at the tanks to 2,500,000 pounds/year with a 12-month
rolling total; (2) The throughput was
[[Page 93242]]
calculated by considering the greatest emissions possible based on
operational needs during tank filling to establish the potential to
emit at 252 pounds VOC; (3) the Facility must maintain monthly records
to verify the throughput in support of a 12-month rolling total; (4)
any increase in throughput beyond 2,500,000 pounds/year will require
the Facility to submit a VOC RACT demonstration that addresses RACT
options at the higher methanol throughput rate.
The EPA is proposing to determine that the proposed limit for the
USTs implements RACT because: (1) The RACT analysis demonstrated that
no additional control technologies beyond what are currently used at
the USTs are technically and economically feasible; (2) the EPA review
indicates that no underground storage tanks in the United States store
methanol in an underground storage tank that has VOC add-on controls;
(3) any increase in throughput beyond 2,500,000 pounds/year will
require the Facility to submit a VOC RACT demonstration that implements
RACT at the higher methanol throughput rate; and (4) the limit
adequately restricts the throughput of the methanol loaded to, or
dispensed from, the USTs.
Further detail on this analysis is provided in the TSD available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
Summary of RACT Controls.
Currently, the Facility limits the VOC emissions from the USTs by
limiting the methanol throughput at 2,500,000 pounds/year. In its RACT
analysis, the Facility demonstrated that no cost-effective controls
were technically feasible. We are proposing to determine that the
following additional technically feasible control options do not need
to be implemented because they are not cost effective: (1) Vapor
recovery system; (2) recuperative thermal oxidizer; and (3) connecting
incinerator piping vents to the USTs.
In order to determine what VOC control technologies could be
economically and technologically feasible for the USTs, the EPA
reviewed the Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available
Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse
(RBLC).\9\ The EPA's review of the RBLC reveals that no similar UST for
methanol storage has VOC controls that are economically feasible, aside
from controls that the Facility has already implemented. The EPA's
search criteria were based on USTs that store methanol and not solely
on the paper manufacturing sector. As such, organic liquid Storage and
the chemical manufacturing sectors, including the wood products
industry, were included in the RBLC search criteria. Based on the RBLC,
the EPA confirms that no new VOC control technologies have become
available that could be implemented on the Facility's USTs. Further
detail on RBLC results and cost effectiveness is provided in the TSD
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The RBLC contains case-specific information on the best
available air pollution technologies that have been required to
reduce the emission of air pollutants from stationary sources. See
<a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/index.cfm?action=Search.BasicSearch&lang=en">https://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/index.cfm?action=Search.BasicSearch&lang=en</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
The CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit
nor require an evaluation of environmental justice (EJ) considerations
and/or concerns, and so the State of New York did not evaluate EJ
concerns as part of its SSSIP submittal. The EPA evaluated EJ concerns
for informational purposes only and is providing the following details
for transparency about this rulemaking to the public. The EPA did not
rely on this information to reach any decisions described in this
action. The EPA created a Community Report (Report) using its EJ
Screen, Version 2.3. The Report is contained in the EPA docket assigned
to this Federal Register document.
The Report addresses a 1-mile ring centered at the Facility. All
thirteen EJ Screen environmental indexes were considered for the
Report: (1) Particulate matter; (2) ozone; (3) nitrogen dioxide; (4)
diesel particulate matter; (5) toxic releases to air; (6) traffic
proximity; (7) lead paint; (8) superfund proximity; (9) risk management
plan (RMP) facility proximity; (10) hazardous waste proximity; (11)
underground storage tanks; (12) wastewater discharge; and (13) drinking
water noncompliance. Both the EJ Indexes and the Supplemental Indexes
were verified using the thirteen environmental indexes. The difference
between the EJ and Supplemental indexes is that the EJ Indexes combine
data on low income and people of color populations, whereas the
Supplemental Indexes combine data on percent low-income, percent
persons with disabilities, percent limited English speaking, and low
life expectancy. We analyze both EJ Indexes and Supplemental Indexes
because they offer different perspectives on community level
vulnerability based on different factors. The EPA uses the National
percentile for the Report results and not the State percentile since
this SSSIP action is a Federal action. The EPA notes that any
environmental index result that is 80 percentile or greater is
relatively high compared to the United States population. The
``percentile'' is what EJ Screen uses to compare the area of study to
national figures.
The Report results in the following National EJ Indexes 80th
percentile or greater: Drinking water noncompliance at 89th percentile.
The Report indicates the following National Supplemental Indexes 80th
percentile or greater: Nitrogen dioxide at 80th percentile; Lead Paint
is at 89th percentile; underground storage tank at 83rd percentile; and
drinking water noncompliance at 94th percentile.
The Facility is in a Justice40 designated disadvantaged community.
January 2021, President Joe Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14008,
Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. Section 223 of the E.O.
established the Justice40 Initiative which directs 40 percent of
certain Federal investments to flow to disadvantaged communities.
To understand the indexes that are at or higher than 80th
percentile, and the Justice40 categories that represent Watertown, NY,
refer to Knowlton EJ Screen 80th Percentile and Knowlton EJ Screen
Community Report Knowlton August 26, 2024 in docket assigned to this
Federal Register document.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the current Source-specific SIP
revision because the limits included in the SSSIP are demonstrated to
implement RACT for emission unit 1-TANKS that represent two 10,000-
gallon USTs. Based on information provided by NYSDEC, and a thorough
RBLC review of similar sources, and an analysis of this Source-specific
SIP revision, the EPA proposes to approve the VOC emission limits for
emission unit 1-TANKS as implementing RACT.
Specifically, the EPA proposes to approve the following limits and
associated requirements as implementing RACT: the Facility must: (1)
Limit VOC emissions by restricting the methanol throughput at the tanks
to 2,500,000 pounds/year with a 12-month rolling total; (2) maintain
monthly records to verify the throughput in support of a 12-month
rolling total; (3) upon any increase in throughput beyond 2,500,000
pounds/year, submit a VOC RACT demonstration that implements RACT at
the higher methanol throughput rate.
[[Page 93243]]
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to Knowlton Technologies LLC title V operating
permit Condition 32 as described in section II. of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and at the EPA Region II Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
<bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards.
In addition, the SIP is not proposing to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and it will
not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation did not
evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SSSIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA performed an
environmental justice analysis, as is described above in the section
titled, ``Environmental Justice Considerations.'' The analysis was done
for the purpose of providing additional context and information about
this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. In
addition, there is no information in the record upon which this
decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for communities with EJ concerns.
List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting, Recordkeeping
requirements, and Volatile organic compound.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Lisa Garcia,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2024-27594 Filed 11-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 26, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.