Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Plan for Inclusion of a Consent Order and Removal of State Orders, 48532-48536 [2024-12516]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
48532
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
• 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
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 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.’’ PADEP did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. The EPA did not perform an
EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in
this action. Due to the nature of the
action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required
as part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for
people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
In addition, this proposed
rulemaking, approval of Pennsylvania’s
Indiana Area SO2 attainment plan, does
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jun 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2024–11175 Filed 6–6–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0235; FRL–12018–
01–R1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Plan
for Inclusion of a Consent Order and
Removal of State Orders
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Connecticut
Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) to
(1) remove State Order 7002B issued to
Dow Chemical USA (Dow) in Gales
Ferry on May 25, 1982 from the
Connecticut SIP, (2) remove State Order
2087 issued to Pratt & Whitney Division
of United Technologies Corporation
(Pratt & Whitney) in North Haven on
March 22, 1989 from the Connecticut
SIP, and (3) add Consent Order 8381
issued to Thames Shipyard and Repair
Company (Thames Shipyard) in New
London, CT on December 3, 2021, to the
Connecticut SIP. State Orders 2087 and
7002B addressed reasonably available
control technology (RACT) for volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions and
sulfur fuel content limits for Pratt &
Whitney and Dow, respectively.
Approving the Thames Shipyard Order
into Connecticut’s SIP would ensure
RACT requirements with respect to VOC
emissions from shipbuilding and repair
operations continue to be implemented
at Thames Shipyard. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 8, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2023–0235 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
kosin.michele@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that, if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID–19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michele Kosin, Physical Scientist, Air
Quality Branch, Air & Radiation
Division (Mail Code 5–MI), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109–3912;
(617) 918–1175; kosin.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Description and Review of Submittals
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On February 8, 1983 (48 FR 5723),
EPA approved Connecticut SourceSpecific State Order 7002B into the SIP.
State Order 7002B, which controls SO2
emissions from combustion equipment
by limiting fuel sulfur content, was
issued to Dow on May 24, 1982. State
Order 7002B is no longer necessary
because most of the regulated
equipment has been removed from the
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
property and the remaining equipment
is subject to more stringent regulatory
requirements than those established in
the Order. On May 25, 2016 (81 FR
33134), EPA approved a SIP revision
submitted by the State of Connecticut
on April 22, 2014 (which included
supplemental submittals submitted on
June 18, 2015, and September 25, 2015).
The May 25, 2016, rulemaking
established sulfur in fuel oil content
limits for use in stationary sources. In
addition, the rulemaking included a
revision to the sampling and emission
testing methods for sulfur content in
liquid fuels. A sulfur in fuel limit for
use in stationary sources was previously
0.5% sulfur by weight as required on or
after January 1, 2002, but this limit was
superseded by the more stringent fuel
limits (0.3% Sulfur, by weight) required
under Sec–19a (e) in the Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA)
Section 22a–174–19a (Sec–19a).1
State Order 8027, a single-source VOC
RACT order, was issued on March 22,
1989, to Pratt & Whitney. On May 30,
1989 (54 FR 22890), EPA approved
Connecticut Source-Specific State Order
8027 into the SIP. However, State Order
8027 is no longer necessary to
implement RACT because the
equipment subject to the Order has been
removed from the property. The Order
was rescinded by CT DEEP on
November 8, 2016.
On December 3, 2021, the CT DEEP
issued Consent Order 8381 to Thames
Shipyard. Consent Order 8381 requires
source-specific VOC RACT to addresses
VOC emissions from miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts coating
operations.
On May 31, 2022, the CT DEEP
proposed to revise the Connecticut SIP
by removing State Orders 7002B and
8027 and adding Consent Order 8381 to
the Connecticut SIP. In accordance with
40 CFR 51.102, to demonstrate
satisfaction of federal public
participation requirements, public
notice of this proposed action was
published on the CT DEEP website on
June 6, 2022. Copies of the notice were
mailed electronically on June 8, 2022, to
the directors of the air pollution
agencies in New York, New Jersey,
Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, along
with a copy to the Director of the Air &
Radiation Division of Region 1 of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In accordance with the public notice
requirements, materials were available
1 RCSA Section 22a–174–19a (c) required a sulfur
in fuel limit (0.5% sulfur, by weight) on or after
January 1, 2002. The May 25, 2016, SIP revision
removed the requirement at Sec–19a (c) and
established the more stringent limit at Sec–19a (e).
See 81 FR 33134.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jun 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
for review on the CT DEEP website. The
public hearing scheduled for July 7,
2022, was cancelled because no one
requested a hearing by the July 6, 2022,
deadline. In accordance with the notice,
the comment period was open through
July 5, 2022. No comments were
received. On July 19, 2022, the CT DEEP
submitted the proposed SIP revision to
EPA.
On February 14, 2024, CT DEEP
submitted a partial revision to its July
2022 SIP submission by removing the
last clause of the last sentence of
paragraph B.21 from Consent Order
8381 from consideration as a SIP
measure. CT DEEP removed the last
clause of the notification of
noncompliance which states, ‘‘unless
specifically so stated by the
Commissioner in writing.’’
II. Description and Review of
Submittals
State Order #7002B Issued to Dow
CT DEEP issued State Order #7002B
to Dow on May 24, 1982, to limit sulfur
dioxide emissions from fuel burning
sources located at the facility in Gales
Ferry. The Order limited the sulfur
content of fuel combusted in the units
to 1% by weight. The Order also
prohibited the concurrent operation of
the Wickes boilers (E7C and E7D).
During an inspection conducted by CT
DEEP on April 20, 2022, it was
determined that Heat Transfer Media
Heater EA and EB, Cyclotherm Boilers
E7A and E7B, and Wickes Boilers E7C
and E7D had all been decommissioned
and removed from the premises.
Dowtherm Heater A and Dowtherm
Heater B remain onsite and are owned
and operated by Americas Styrenics,
LLC. The Dowtherm heaters are
identified as EU–1 and EU–2 in
Americas Styrenics, LLC’s Title V
permit (Permit #092–0027–TV).
On May 25, 2016 (81 FR 33134), EPA
approved a SIP revision submitted by
the State of Connecticut on April 22,
2014 (which included supplemental
submittals submitted on June 18, 2015,
and September 25, 2015). This revision
established a more stringent sulfur in
fuel oil content limit of 0.3% sulfur by
weight for use in stationary sources
(RCSA Sec–19a (e)), which superseded
the previous limit of 0.5% sulfur by
weight under RCSA Sec–19a (c). The
revision also incorporated new
provisions under RCSA section 22a–
174–19b (Sec–19b) ‘‘Fuel Sulfur content
Limitations for Stationary Sources’’ that
limited the fuel sulfur content of
distillate oil to 0.0015% by weight and
residual oil to 0.3% by weight.
Therefore, these regulations contained
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48533
more stringent limits than the limit
specified in State Order 7002B. In
addition, the submittal included a more
recent version of the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test
method D4294 and automatic sampling
equipment conformance to ASTM test
method D4177–82 for sulfur content in
liquid fuels. On April 28, 2022, the
Connecticut DEEP’s Enforcement
Division of the Bureau of Air
Management reviewed the information
regarding State Order Number 7002B
and determined that the Order was
obsolete. Order 7002B was determined
no longer necessary because most of the
subject equipment had been removed
from the property and the remaining
equipment was subject to more stringent
regulatory requirements than those
established in the Order. Accordingly,
the Connecticut DEEP rescinded the
Order on April 28, 2022.
State Order 8027 Issued to Pratt &
Whitney
State Order 8027, a single-source VOC
RACT Order, was issued by CT DEEP on
March 22, 1989, to Pratt & Whitney with
requirements for the use of vapor
degreasers and solvent cleaning at its
facility in North Haven. During an
inspection conducted on October 6,
1995, CT DEEP determined that there
was no vapor or conveyorized
degreasers in service at the facility.
Subsequently, Pratt & Whitney sold the
property on December 31, 2001, and
ceased all operations at the facility on
December 31, 2002. During an
inspection conducted on June 6, 2012,
the CT DEEP confirmed that the site
appeared to be abandoned because the
building and parking lot were in
disrepair, the landscaping was
overgrown, and the entrance was gated
and padlocked. Accordingly, State
Order 8027 is no longer necessary
because the subject equipment has been
removed from the property, and the
Order was rescinded by CT DEEP on
October 8, 2016.
Consent Order No. 8381 Issued to
Thames Shipyard
Thames Shipyard conducts ship
building and repair operations at its
facility in New London. Thames
Shipyard is classified as a major source
of HAP for the Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair Surface Coating National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, at 40 CFR 63 Subpart II
(‘‘Shipbuilding NESHAP’’) and is
subject to the emission control
requirements promulgated in the
Shipbuilding NESHAP. However,
Thames Shipyard can accept an
enforceable limit on its potential to emit
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
48534
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
and apply to the state regulatory
authority to be reclassified from a
NESHAP major source to an area
source.2 3 If Thames Shipyard is
reclassified as an area source of HAP, it
must satisfy the requirements of
Connecticut’s RACT rule for the
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coating source category at Section 22a–
174–20(s). Therefore, Thames Shipyard
requested the VOC content limits set
forth in the Shipbuilding NESHAP to be
issued as a state-issued consent order
for incorporation into the SIP. In
response to this request, CT DEEP
issued Consent Order 8381 on December
3, 2021, which ensures that the VOC
emissions from shipbuilding and repair
operations at Thames Shipyard continue
to be no less stringent than the NESHAP
requirements and consistent with the
EPA Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Operations (Surface Coating) published
August 27, 1996 (61 FR 44050).
On February 14, 2024, CT revised its
SIP submission to remove the last clause
of the last sentence of paragraph B.21 of
Consent Order 8381 from consideration
as a SIP measure. Specifically, CT DEEP
removed the last clause of the
notification of noncompliance which
states, ‘‘unless specifically so stated by
the Commissioner in writing.’’ This
phrase was removed because SIPapproved requirements cannot be openended and later arbitrarily established
or waived by the state.
The information provided by Thames
Shipyard indicated that the identified
shipbuilding coatings are necessary to
protect ships from corrosion. As shown
in Table 1 below, the VOC content limit
for each coating category in Consent
Order 8381 is no greater than the
analogous limit in the Shipbuilding
NESHAP and CTG. Consent Order 8381
also grants the use of the thinning
formula prescribed in the Shipbuilding
NESHAP in lieu of the formula found in
Section 22a–174–20(s)(9)(A) of the
RCSA. According to Thames Shipyard,
the thinner formula prescribed in
Section 22a174–20(s) of the RCSA fails
to address the use of the thinner
outdoors under cold conditions.
Because the formula prescribed in the
Shipbuilding NESHAP (Equation 1 in 40
CFR 63.785(c)(2)) considers the solids
content of the batch, this formula is
more appropriate for Thames Shipyard
than the formula prescribed in Section
22a–174–20(s)(9)(A) of the RCSA when
determining the maximum allowable
thinning ratio or ratios to be applied at
the facility, as the facility repairs ships
year-round and outdoors. Because this
calculation method is based upon the
methodology at 40 CFR 63.785, this
provision would achieve no less than
the level of VOC emission control as
provided for in the Shipbuilding
NESHAP.
The VOC content limits for each
coating category is no greater than the
analogous limit in the Shipbuilding
NESHAP and CTG. Table 1 below
summarizes the comparison between
the VOC content limits for the
Shipbuilding NESHAP and CTG in each
coating category. As demonstrated in
Table 1 below, the requirements in
Consent Order 8381 with respect to
VOC limits are consistent with the
limits in the Shipbuilding NESHAP and
CTG, and achieve the same or a more
stringent level of emission control as the
Shipbuilding NESHAP and CTG.
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF SHIPBUILDING NESHAP VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTENT LIMITS AND THE
CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINE (CTG) VOC CONTENT LIMITS WITH RESPECT TO THE VOC CONTENT LIMITS FOR
THAMES SHIPYARD & REPAIR COMPANY
Coating category
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
General Use inventory .........................................
High-Gloss ...........................................................
Antifoulant ............................................................
Nonskid ................................................................
Organic Zinc ........................................................
Pretreatment Wash Primer ..................................
High-Temperature ................................................
Heat Resistant .....................................................
Inorganic Zinc High-Build ....................................
RACT Order 8381 for
Thames Shipyard &
Repair Company
VOC content limits
(grams/liter of coating)
Shipbuilding &
repair CTG
VOC content limits
(grams/liter of coating)
Shipbuilding NESHAP
VOC content limits
(grams/liter of coating)
340
420
400
340
360
780
500
420
360
340
420
400
340
360
780
500
420
340
340
420
400
340
360
780
500
420
340
To further analyze whether Consent
Order No. 8381 issued to Thames
Shipyard adequately implements RACT,
EPA reviewed multiple potential VOC
control requirements that might apply to
shipbuilding and repair operations,
which were drawn from EPA’s own
guidance and regulations, Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) model
rules and guidelines,4 and neighboring
states’ regulatory requirements. EPA’s
relevant CTG and NESHAP
requirements have not changed since
August 27,1996 (61 FR–44050) and
November 21, 2011 (76 FR 72050), and
were evaluated against other regulations
to ensure Consent Order 8381
adequately implements RACT. EPA was
unable to identify any OTC model rules
or guidelines for implementing RACT
with respect to VOC emissions for this
category of operations.
With respect to neighboring states’
requirements, Massachusetts has sourcespecific requirements for Boston Ship
Repair, LLC, that are in accordance with
the NESHAP for Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair in 40 CFR part 63 subpart II.
Rhode Island issued a single source
RACT order for US Watercraft, LLC in
Warren, Rhode Island, which was
approved as implementing RACT for
VOC emissions by EPA on September
21, 2017 (82 FR 44103). Massachusetts
and Rhode Island requirements very
closely mimic the EPA CTG and
NESHAP requirements and collectively
contain as many as twenty-two specialty
coating categories with VOC content
2 See EPA’s November 19, 2020 final rulemaking
titled ‘‘Reclassification of Major Sources as Area
Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act’’.
85 FR 73854.
3 Thames Shipyard has accepted federally
enforceable permit limits to its facility-wide
potential-to-emit to below major source thresholds.
See CT DEEP NSR Permit Nos. 128–0062 and 128–
0063 in the administrative docket for this action.
4 Ozone Transport Commission. Model Rules and
Guidelines. Retrieved January 3, 2024, https://
otcair.org/materials/model-rules-and-guidelines.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jun 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
limits ranging from 340 to 780 grams of
VOC per liter of coating, as well as a
general use limit of 340 grams of VOC
per liter of coating. To compare, the
Connecticut Order for Thames Shipyard
contains eight specialty coating
categories with VOC content limits
ranging from 340 to 780 grams of VOC
per liter of coating and a general use
VOC limit of 340 grams of VOC per liter
of coating.
New York added Title 6 NYCRR Part
228 to its SIP on January 23, 2004 (69
FR 3237) and re-certified that state
regulation as implementing RACT with
respect to VOC emissions on November
9, 2023 (88 FR 77208). New York’s
requirements are different in character
in that they primarily pertain to
‘‘pleasure craft’’ which are smaller, noncommercial, recreational type vessels,
whereas the EPA CTG and NESHAP
shipbuilding and repair operations
address larger ships, barges, and other
vessels for military and commercial use.
Since New York’s regulation focuses on
pleasure craft, it lacks some of the
specialty coating requirements for
shipbuilding repair. The New York
regulation contains seven specialty
coating categories with VOC content
limits ranging from 330 to 780 grams of
VOC per liter of coating and a general
use category VOC content limit of 420
grams of VOC per liter of coating.
Finally, New Jersey made a negative
declaration for the shipbuilding and
ship repair CTG category on October 9,
2018 (83 FR 50506), which indicates
they have no relevant operations.
Therefore, a review of CT’s limits as
compared to neighboring states with
similar regulations indicates that CT’s
limits are the same or more stringent
than the limits prescribed by
neighboring states, including
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,
and Rhode Island.
EPA has reviewed the CT DEEP SIP
submittal with respect to Consent Order
No. 8381 issued to Thames Shipyard
and proposes to determine that the VOC
stationary source controls requirements
in the Consent Order implement RACT
and we are therefore proposing to
approve the addition of Consent Order
into the CT SIP.
Clean Air Act Subsection 110(l) and
Section 193 Compliance
Subsection 110(l) of the CAA is
referred to as the ‘‘anti-backsliding’’
provision because the subsection
prohibits EPA from approving a revision
of a plan if the revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement in the
chapter, including reasonable further
progress and attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards. Similarly,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jun 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
section 193 of the CAA prohibits EPA
from modifying control requirements in
effect before November 15, 1990, unless
the modification insures equivalent or
greater emission reductions. EPA is
proposing to determine that CAA
sections 110(l) and 193 are not
implicated by this action because the
Orders proposed to be removed from the
CT SIP no longer control sources of VOC
or SO2 emissions, and the Order we are
proposing to add to the CT SIP would
ensure equivalent or greater emission
reductions when compared to the
current CT SIP.
As explained above, the Dow units
subject to State Order #7002B were
decommissioned and removed, and the
low-sulfur fuel oil requirements that
now apply to the other units still
present at the facility are currently
required by a statewide regulation,
which was approved into the CT SIP on
May 25, 2016 (81 FR 33134). Also as
explained above, the Pratt & Whitney
vapor degreasers and solvent cleaning
equipment described in State Order
8027 have been removed from the
property, and Pratt & Whitney sold the
property on December 31, 2001, and
ceased all operations at the facility on
December 31, 2002. With regard to
adding Consent Order 8381 issued to
the Thames Shipyard to the SIP, as
explained above, the requirements in
Consent Order 8381 implement RACT
for VOC emissions and achieve no less
VOC control as compared to the existing
NESHAP regulations currently
applicable to the facility. Therefore,
EPA proposes that the SIP revision
complies with subsection 110(l) and
section 193 of the CAA because the
revision ensures equivalent or greater
emission reductions when compared to
the current CT SIP and the equipment
subject to State Order #7002B and 8027
has been decommissioned and is no
longer in use.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the CT
DEEP’s request to revise the Connecticut
SIP to (1) remove State Order 7002B
issued to Dow Chemical USA in Gales
Ferry on May 25, 1982 from the
Connecticut SIP, (2) remove State Order
issued to Pratt & Whitney Division of
United Technologies Corporation in
North Haven on March 22, 1989 from
the Connecticut SIP, and (3) add
Consent Order 8381issued to Thames
Shipyard and Repair Company in New
London on December 3, 2021, to the
Connecticut SIP, with the exception of
the language that was removed from the
proposed SIP revision on February 14,
2024 as described above.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48535
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this notice and
other relevant considerations. These
comments will be considered before
taking final action. Interested parties
may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting
written comments to this proposed rule
by following the instructions listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
RACT Order Consent Order 8381, dated
December 3, 2021, which establishes
VOC RACT requirements for Thames
Shipyard and Repair Company. In this
rule, the EPA is proposing to remove a
single-source VOC RACT Order 2087
issued to Pratt & Whitney Division of
United Technologies Corporation, in
North Haven, Connecticut, which was
approved by EPA into the SIP on May
30, 1989 (54 FR 22890) and State Order
7002B, issued to Dow Chemical USA, in
Gales Ferry, Connecticut, which was
approved by EPA into the SIP on
February 8, 1983 (48 FR 5723) because
the regulated activities have ceased
operation and no longer exist. The
proposed changes are described in
sections I. and II. of this document. The
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally
available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 1 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C.
7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role
is to approve state choices, provided
that they meet the criteria of the Clean
Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed
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:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735,
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
48536
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• 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.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• 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
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
• In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where 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 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. 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.’’ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jun 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The CT DEEP did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this
action. Due to the nature of the action
being taken here, this action is expected
to have a neutral to positive impact on
the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for
people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 3, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2024–12516 Filed 6–6–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Part 5b
[Docket Number NIH–2022–0002]
RIN 0925–AA69
Privacy Act; Implementation
National Institutes of Health
(NIH), Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
In accordance with
subsections (j)(2) and (k)(2) of the
Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (the
Privacy Act or the Act), the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS or
Department) is proposing to exempt a
new system of records maintained by
the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
System No. 09–25–0224, ‘‘NIH Police
Records,’’ from certain requirements of
the Act. The new system of records will
cover criminal and non-criminal law
enforcement investigatory material
maintained by the NIH Division of
Police, a component of NIH which
performs criminal law enforcement as
its principal function. The exemptions
are necessary and appropriate to protect
the integrity of law enforcement
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proceedings and records compiled in
the course of NIH Division of Police
activities, prevent disclosure of
investigative techniques, and protect the
identity of confidential sources involved
in those activities. Elsewhere in the
Federal Register, HHS/NIH has
published a System of Records Notice
(SORN) for System No. 09–25–0224 for
public notice and comment which
describes the new system of records in
more detail.
DATES: Submit either electronic or
written comments regarding this
document by August 6, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by Docket No NIH–2022–
0002, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the
following ways:
• Fax: 301–402–0169 (not a toll-free
number).
• Mail: Daniel Hernandez, NIH
Regulations Officer, Office of
Management Assessment, National
Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge
Drive, (RK1) 601–U, Rockville, MD
20892–7901.
To ensure timelier processing of
comments, HHS/NIH is no longer
accepting comments submitted to the
agency by email. HHS/NIH encourages
you to continue to submit electronic
comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, as described
previously, in the ADDRESSES portion of
this document under Electronic
Submissions.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
Docket No. for this rulemaking. All
comments received may be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
instructions provided for conducting a
search, using the docket number(s)
found in brackets in the heading of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General questions about the exemptions
may be submitted to Daniel Hernandez,
NIH Regulations Officer, Office of
Management Assessment, National
Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48532-48536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-12516]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0235; FRL-12018-01-R1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Plan for Inclusion of a Consent
Order and Removal of State Orders
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP)
to (1) remove State Order 7002B issued to Dow Chemical USA (Dow) in
Gales Ferry on May 25, 1982 from the Connecticut SIP, (2) remove State
Order 2087 issued to Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies
Corporation (Pratt & Whitney) in North Haven on March 22, 1989 from the
Connecticut SIP, and (3) add Consent Order 8381 issued to Thames
Shipyard and Repair Company (Thames Shipyard) in New London, CT on
December 3, 2021, to the Connecticut SIP. State Orders 2087 and 7002B
addressed reasonably available control technology (RACT) for volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions and sulfur fuel content limits for
Pratt & Whitney and Dow, respectively. Approving the Thames Shipyard
Order into Connecticut's SIP would ensure RACT requirements with
respect to VOC emissions from shipbuilding and repair operations
continue to be implemented at Thames Shipyard. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 8, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2023-0235 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Kosin, Physical Scientist, Air
Quality Branch, Air & Radiation Division (Mail Code 5-MI), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1175;
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Description and Review of Submittals
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On February 8, 1983 (48 FR 5723), EPA approved Connecticut Source-
Specific State Order 7002B into the SIP. State Order 7002B, which
controls SO2 emissions from combustion equipment by limiting
fuel sulfur content, was issued to Dow on May 24, 1982. State Order
7002B is no longer necessary because most of the regulated equipment
has been removed from the
[[Page 48533]]
property and the remaining equipment is subject to more stringent
regulatory requirements than those established in the Order. On May 25,
2016 (81 FR 33134), EPA approved a SIP revision submitted by the State
of Connecticut on April 22, 2014 (which included supplemental
submittals submitted on June 18, 2015, and September 25, 2015). The May
25, 2016, rulemaking established sulfur in fuel oil content limits for
use in stationary sources. In addition, the rulemaking included a
revision to the sampling and emission testing methods for sulfur
content in liquid fuels. A sulfur in fuel limit for use in stationary
sources was previously 0.5% sulfur by weight as required on or after
January 1, 2002, but this limit was superseded by the more stringent
fuel limits (0.3% Sulfur, by weight) required under Sec-19a (e) in the
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a-174-19a
(Sec-19a).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RCSA Section 22a-174-19a (c) required a sulfur in fuel limit
(0.5% sulfur, by weight) on or after January 1, 2002. The May 25,
2016, SIP revision removed the requirement at Sec-19a (c) and
established the more stringent limit at Sec-19a (e). See 81 FR
33134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Order 8027, a single-source VOC RACT order, was issued on
March 22, 1989, to Pratt & Whitney. On May 30, 1989 (54 FR 22890), EPA
approved Connecticut Source-Specific State Order 8027 into the SIP.
However, State Order 8027 is no longer necessary to implement RACT
because the equipment subject to the Order has been removed from the
property. The Order was rescinded by CT DEEP on November 8, 2016.
On December 3, 2021, the CT DEEP issued Consent Order 8381 to
Thames Shipyard. Consent Order 8381 requires source-specific VOC RACT
to addresses VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coating operations.
On May 31, 2022, the CT DEEP proposed to revise the Connecticut SIP
by removing State Orders 7002B and 8027 and adding Consent Order 8381
to the Connecticut SIP. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.102, to
demonstrate satisfaction of federal public participation requirements,
public notice of this proposed action was published on the CT DEEP
website on June 6, 2022. Copies of the notice were mailed
electronically on June 8, 2022, to the directors of the air pollution
agencies in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts,
along with a copy to the Director of the Air & Radiation Division of
Region 1 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In accordance
with the public notice requirements, materials were available for
review on the CT DEEP website. The public hearing scheduled for July 7,
2022, was cancelled because no one requested a hearing by the July 6,
2022, deadline. In accordance with the notice, the comment period was
open through July 5, 2022. No comments were received. On July 19, 2022,
the CT DEEP submitted the proposed SIP revision to EPA.
On February 14, 2024, CT DEEP submitted a partial revision to its
July 2022 SIP submission by removing the last clause of the last
sentence of paragraph B.21 from Consent Order 8381 from consideration
as a SIP measure. CT DEEP removed the last clause of the notification
of noncompliance which states, ``unless specifically so stated by the
Commissioner in writing.''
II. Description and Review of Submittals
State Order #7002B Issued to Dow
CT DEEP issued State Order #7002B to Dow on May 24, 1982, to limit
sulfur dioxide emissions from fuel burning sources located at the
facility in Gales Ferry. The Order limited the sulfur content of fuel
combusted in the units to 1% by weight. The Order also prohibited the
concurrent operation of the Wickes boilers (E7C and E7D). During an
inspection conducted by CT DEEP on April 20, 2022, it was determined
that Heat Transfer Media Heater EA and EB, Cyclotherm Boilers E7A and
E7B, and Wickes Boilers E7C and E7D had all been decommissioned and
removed from the premises. Dowtherm Heater A and Dowtherm Heater B
remain onsite and are owned and operated by Americas Styrenics, LLC.
The Dowtherm heaters are identified as EU-1 and EU-2 in Americas
Styrenics, LLC's Title V permit (Permit #092-0027-TV).
On May 25, 2016 (81 FR 33134), EPA approved a SIP revision
submitted by the State of Connecticut on April 22, 2014 (which included
supplemental submittals submitted on June 18, 2015, and September 25,
2015). This revision established a more stringent sulfur in fuel oil
content limit of 0.3% sulfur by weight for use in stationary sources
(RCSA Sec-19a (e)), which superseded the previous limit of 0.5% sulfur
by weight under RCSA Sec-19a (c). The revision also incorporated new
provisions under RCSA section 22a-174-19b (Sec-19b) ``Fuel Sulfur
content Limitations for Stationary Sources'' that limited the fuel
sulfur content of distillate oil to 0.0015% by weight and residual oil
to 0.3% by weight. Therefore, these regulations contained more
stringent limits than the limit specified in State Order 7002B. In
addition, the submittal included a more recent version of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method D4294 and
automatic sampling equipment conformance to ASTM test method D4177-82
for sulfur content in liquid fuels. On April 28, 2022, the Connecticut
DEEP's Enforcement Division of the Bureau of Air Management reviewed
the information regarding State Order Number 7002B and determined that
the Order was obsolete. Order 7002B was determined no longer necessary
because most of the subject equipment had been removed from the
property and the remaining equipment was subject to more stringent
regulatory requirements than those established in the Order.
Accordingly, the Connecticut DEEP rescinded the Order on April 28,
2022.
State Order 8027 Issued to Pratt & Whitney
State Order 8027, a single-source VOC RACT Order, was issued by CT
DEEP on March 22, 1989, to Pratt & Whitney with requirements for the
use of vapor degreasers and solvent cleaning at its facility in North
Haven. During an inspection conducted on October 6, 1995, CT DEEP
determined that there was no vapor or conveyorized degreasers in
service at the facility. Subsequently, Pratt & Whitney sold the
property on December 31, 2001, and ceased all operations at the
facility on December 31, 2002. During an inspection conducted on June
6, 2012, the CT DEEP confirmed that the site appeared to be abandoned
because the building and parking lot were in disrepair, the landscaping
was overgrown, and the entrance was gated and padlocked. Accordingly,
State Order 8027 is no longer necessary because the subject equipment
has been removed from the property, and the Order was rescinded by CT
DEEP on October 8, 2016.
Consent Order No. 8381 Issued to Thames Shipyard
Thames Shipyard conducts ship building and repair operations at its
facility in New London. Thames Shipyard is classified as a major source
of HAP for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Surface Coating National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, at 40 CFR 63 Subpart
II (``Shipbuilding NESHAP'') and is subject to the emission control
requirements promulgated in the Shipbuilding NESHAP. However, Thames
Shipyard can accept an enforceable limit on its potential to emit
[[Page 48534]]
and apply to the state regulatory authority to be reclassified from a
NESHAP major source to an area source.2 3 If Thames Shipyard
is reclassified as an area source of HAP, it must satisfy the
requirements of Connecticut's RACT rule for the miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts coating source category at Section 22a-174-20(s).
Therefore, Thames Shipyard requested the VOC content limits set forth
in the Shipbuilding NESHAP to be issued as a state-issued consent order
for incorporation into the SIP. In response to this request, CT DEEP
issued Consent Order 8381 on December 3, 2021, which ensures that the
VOC emissions from shipbuilding and repair operations at Thames
Shipyard continue to be no less stringent than the NESHAP requirements
and consistent with the EPA Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating) published
August 27, 1996 (61 FR 44050).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See EPA's November 19, 2020 final rulemaking titled
``Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act''. 85 FR 73854.
\3\ Thames Shipyard has accepted federally enforceable permit
limits to its facility-wide potential-to-emit to below major source
thresholds. See CT DEEP NSR Permit Nos. 128-0062 and 128-0063 in the
administrative docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 14, 2024, CT revised its SIP submission to remove the
last clause of the last sentence of paragraph B.21 of Consent Order
8381 from consideration as a SIP measure. Specifically, CT DEEP removed
the last clause of the notification of noncompliance which states,
``unless specifically so stated by the Commissioner in writing.'' This
phrase was removed because SIP-approved requirements cannot be open-
ended and later arbitrarily established or waived by the state.
The information provided by Thames Shipyard indicated that the
identified shipbuilding coatings are necessary to protect ships from
corrosion. As shown in Table 1 below, the VOC content limit for each
coating category in Consent Order 8381 is no greater than the analogous
limit in the Shipbuilding NESHAP and CTG. Consent Order 8381 also
grants the use of the thinning formula prescribed in the Shipbuilding
NESHAP in lieu of the formula found in Section 22a-174-20(s)(9)(A) of
the RCSA. According to Thames Shipyard, the thinner formula prescribed
in Section 22a174-20(s) of the RCSA fails to address the use of the
thinner outdoors under cold conditions. Because the formula prescribed
in the Shipbuilding NESHAP (Equation 1 in 40 CFR 63.785(c)(2))
considers the solids content of the batch, this formula is more
appropriate for Thames Shipyard than the formula prescribed in Section
22a-174-20(s)(9)(A) of the RCSA when determining the maximum allowable
thinning ratio or ratios to be applied at the facility, as the facility
repairs ships year-round and outdoors. Because this calculation method
is based upon the methodology at 40 CFR 63.785, this provision would
achieve no less than the level of VOC emission control as provided for
in the Shipbuilding NESHAP.
The VOC content limits for each coating category is no greater than
the analogous limit in the Shipbuilding NESHAP and CTG. Table 1 below
summarizes the comparison between the VOC content limits for the
Shipbuilding NESHAP and CTG in each coating category. As demonstrated
in Table 1 below, the requirements in Consent Order 8381 with respect
to VOC limits are consistent with the limits in the Shipbuilding NESHAP
and CTG, and achieve the same or a more stringent level of emission
control as the Shipbuilding NESHAP and CTG.
Table 1--Comparison of Shipbuilding NESHAP Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content Limits and the Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) VOC Content Limits
With Respect to the VOC Content Limits for Thames Shipyard & Repair Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RACT Order 8381 for Thames
Shipbuilding NESHAP VOC Shipbuilding & repair CTG Shipyard & Repair Company
Coating category content limits (grams/liter VOC content limits (grams/ VOC content limits (grams/
of coating) liter of coating) liter of coating)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Use inventory............................................ 340 340 340
High-Gloss....................................................... 420 420 420
Antifoulant...................................................... 400 400 400
Nonskid.......................................................... 340 340 340
Organic Zinc..................................................... 360 360 360
Pretreatment Wash Primer......................................... 780 780 780
High-Temperature................................................. 500 500 500
Heat Resistant................................................... 420 420 420
Inorganic Zinc High-Build........................................ 360 340 340
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further analyze whether Consent Order No. 8381 issued to Thames
Shipyard adequately implements RACT, EPA reviewed multiple potential
VOC control requirements that might apply to shipbuilding and repair
operations, which were drawn from EPA's own guidance and regulations,
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rules and guidelines,\4\ and
neighboring states' regulatory requirements. EPA's relevant CTG and
NESHAP requirements have not changed since August 27,1996 (61 FR-44050)
and November 21, 2011 (76 FR 72050), and were evaluated against other
regulations to ensure Consent Order 8381 adequately implements RACT.
EPA was unable to identify any OTC model rules or guidelines for
implementing RACT with respect to VOC emissions for this category of
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ozone Transport Commission. Model Rules and Guidelines.
Retrieved January 3, 2024, https://otcair.org/materials/model-rules-and-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to neighboring states' requirements, Massachusetts has
source-specific requirements for Boston Ship Repair, LLC, that are in
accordance with the NESHAP for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair in 40 CFR
part 63 subpart II. Rhode Island issued a single source RACT order for
US Watercraft, LLC in Warren, Rhode Island, which was approved as
implementing RACT for VOC emissions by EPA on September 21, 2017 (82 FR
44103). Massachusetts and Rhode Island requirements very closely mimic
the EPA CTG and NESHAP requirements and collectively contain as many as
twenty-two specialty coating categories with VOC content
[[Page 48535]]
limits ranging from 340 to 780 grams of VOC per liter of coating, as
well as a general use limit of 340 grams of VOC per liter of coating.
To compare, the Connecticut Order for Thames Shipyard contains eight
specialty coating categories with VOC content limits ranging from 340
to 780 grams of VOC per liter of coating and a general use VOC limit of
340 grams of VOC per liter of coating.
New York added Title 6 NYCRR Part 228 to its SIP on January 23,
2004 (69 FR 3237) and re-certified that state regulation as
implementing RACT with respect to VOC emissions on November 9, 2023 (88
FR 77208). New York's requirements are different in character in that
they primarily pertain to ``pleasure craft'' which are smaller, non-
commercial, recreational type vessels, whereas the EPA CTG and NESHAP
shipbuilding and repair operations address larger ships, barges, and
other vessels for military and commercial use. Since New York's
regulation focuses on pleasure craft, it lacks some of the specialty
coating requirements for shipbuilding repair. The New York regulation
contains seven specialty coating categories with VOC content limits
ranging from 330 to 780 grams of VOC per liter of coating and a general
use category VOC content limit of 420 grams of VOC per liter of
coating. Finally, New Jersey made a negative declaration for the
shipbuilding and ship repair CTG category on October 9, 2018 (83 FR
50506), which indicates they have no relevant operations. Therefore, a
review of CT's limits as compared to neighboring states with similar
regulations indicates that CT's limits are the same or more stringent
than the limits prescribed by neighboring states, including
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
EPA has reviewed the CT DEEP SIP submittal with respect to Consent
Order No. 8381 issued to Thames Shipyard and proposes to determine that
the VOC stationary source controls requirements in the Consent Order
implement RACT and we are therefore proposing to approve the addition
of Consent Order into the CT SIP.
Clean Air Act Subsection 110(l) and Section 193 Compliance
Subsection 110(l) of the CAA is referred to as the ``anti-
backsliding'' provision because the subsection prohibits EPA from
approving a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement in the chapter, including reasonable further
progress and attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
Similarly, section 193 of the CAA prohibits EPA from modifying control
requirements in effect before November 15, 1990, unless the
modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions. EPA is
proposing to determine that CAA sections 110(l) and 193 are not
implicated by this action because the Orders proposed to be removed
from the CT SIP no longer control sources of VOC or SO2
emissions, and the Order we are proposing to add to the CT SIP would
ensure equivalent or greater emission reductions when compared to the
current CT SIP.
As explained above, the Dow units subject to State Order #7002B
were decommissioned and removed, and the low-sulfur fuel oil
requirements that now apply to the other units still present at the
facility are currently required by a statewide regulation, which was
approved into the CT SIP on May 25, 2016 (81 FR 33134). Also as
explained above, the Pratt & Whitney vapor degreasers and solvent
cleaning equipment described in State Order 8027 have been removed from
the property, and Pratt & Whitney sold the property on December 31,
2001, and ceased all operations at the facility on December 31, 2002.
With regard to adding Consent Order 8381 issued to the Thames Shipyard
to the SIP, as explained above, the requirements in Consent Order 8381
implement RACT for VOC emissions and achieve no less VOC control as
compared to the existing NESHAP regulations currently applicable to the
facility. Therefore, EPA proposes that the SIP revision complies with
subsection 110(l) and section 193 of the CAA because the revision
ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions when compared to the
current CT SIP and the equipment subject to State Order #7002B and 8027
has been decommissioned and is no longer in use.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the CT DEEP's request to revise the
Connecticut SIP to (1) remove State Order 7002B issued to Dow Chemical
USA in Gales Ferry on May 25, 1982 from the Connecticut SIP, (2) remove
State Order issued to Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies
Corporation in North Haven on March 22, 1989 from the Connecticut SIP,
and (3) add Consent Order 8381issued to Thames Shipyard and Repair
Company in New London on December 3, 2021, to the Connecticut SIP, with
the exception of the language that was removed from the proposed SIP
revision on February 14, 2024 as described above.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice and other relevant considerations. These comments will be
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference RACT Order Consent Order 8381, dated December 3, 2021, which
establishes VOC RACT requirements for Thames Shipyard and Repair
Company. In this rule, the EPA is proposing to remove a single-source
VOC RACT Order 2087 issued to Pratt & Whitney Division of United
Technologies Corporation, in North Haven, Connecticut, which was
approved by EPA into the SIP on May 30, 1989 (54 FR 22890) and State
Order 7002B, issued to Dow Chemical USA, in Gales Ferry, Connecticut,
which was approved by EPA into the SIP on February 8, 1983 (48 FR 5723)
because the regulated activities have ceased operation and no longer
exist. The proposed changes are described in sections I. and II. of
this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and
at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58
FR 51735,
[[Page 48536]]
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
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.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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 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.
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.'' 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 CT DEEP did not evaluate environmental justice considerations
as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did
not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due
to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected
to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and
there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal
of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color,
low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 3, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2024-12516 Filed 6-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
