Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Greif Packaging LLC, 58099-58101 [2024-15572]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
administrative type revisions are
approvable since they ensure terms
included in the new rule language are
defined and cross references are
updated.
EPA has reviewed the amendments
contained in Wisconsin’s submittal, as
discussed in detail above, and is
proposing to approve the amended
portions of NR 400, 428, and 484.
Because these changes provide clarity
and generally strengthen the currently
approved SIP, EPA is proposing that
these changes will not interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning
attainment, reasonable further progress,
or any other Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirement, and therefore, fulfill
section 110(l) of the CAA.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve the
revisions in NR 400, 428, and 484 of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code since
these changes clarify and streamline
Wisconsin’s NOX control regulatory
requirements.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, 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, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
Wisconsin rule(s) 400.03(4)(mf),
428.02(7i), 428.02(7p), 428.02(7u),
428.02(7w), 428.04(2)(i), 428.04(4)(c),
428.05(2)(b), 428.05(2)(f), 428.05(3)(f),
428.05(5)(c), 428.22(1), 428.22(3),
428.24(1)(c), 428.08(2)(e)(title),
428.08(2)(f)(title), 428.08(2)(g),
428.08(3), 484.04 Table 2 Row (15m),
and 428.21(3)(d), effective April 1, 2024,
discussed in section II of this preamble.
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally
available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 5 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
V. 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,
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• 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 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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 subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a state program;
• 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 CAA.
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,
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. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58099
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 WDNR did not evaluate EJ
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 EJ for people of color, lowincome populations, and Indigenous
peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 10, 2024.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2024–15598 Filed 7–16–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2023–0318; FRL–11926–
01–R5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Greif
Packaging LLC
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to
the sulfur dioxide (SO2) regulations
under Chapter 3745–18 of the Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC). Ohio
submitted the request to EPA on June 8,
2023. The revision removes SO2
emissions limitations for fuel burning
equipment at the Greif Packaging, LLC
facility located at 9420 Warmington Rd.
SW in Massillon, Ohio (Greif facility).
The units that were subject to these
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
58100
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
limits have been permanently shut
down.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 16, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2023–0318 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
langman.michael@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from the docket. EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI),
Proprietary Business Information (PBI),
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. 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, PBI, or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tyler Salamasick, Air and Radiation
Division (AR18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886–6206,
salamasick.tyler@epa.gov. The EPA
Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
I. What is the background for these
actions?
On August 27, 1976, EPA
promulgated an SO2 Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP), specifying
SO2 emission limits for fuel-burning
equipment at the Greif facility (40 CFR
52.1881(a)(27)(v)). On December 28,
1979, the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA)
established rules in the OAC to control
SO2 emissions from fuel-burning
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
equipment. Ohio EPA amended OAC
Chapter 3745–18–82(F) to align it with
the FIP.
These rules included provisions for
limiting SO2 emissions from the Greif
facility under paragraph (F) of OAC rule
3745–18–82. At that time, the Greif
facility operated six boilers (B001 to
B006), with B005 and B006 having the
capability to burn fuel oil in addition to
natural gas. On March 21, 2008 (56 FR
15083), EPA approved rules for
Franklin, Stark, and Summit Counties
and for one source in Sandusky County
which replaced the FIP.
The Greif facility currently has no
coal or oil-fired boilers. The only
remaining boilers are natural gas fired.
Since the burning of natural gas in fuel
burning equipment is exempt from the
requirements of OAC rule 3745–18
under OAC rule 3745–18–06(A), the
remaining boilers are not subject to
3745–18–82(F).
II. What is EPA’s analysis of Ohio’s SIP
revision?
On June 8, 2023, Ohio EPA submitted
a revision to Ohio’s SIP removing SO2
boiler emissions limits for the Greif
facility contained in paragraph (F) of
OAC rule 3745–18–82. EPA requested
supplemental information clarifying
that the removal of paragraph (F) did
not impact any existing emission units
at the facility. The original language of
paragraph (F) required that any owner
or operator at 9420 Warmington Rd. SW,
Massillon, Ohio shall not cause or
permit the emission of sulfur dioxide
from any stack at this facility in excess
of 0.50 pounds of sulfur dioxide per
millions of British thermal units actual
heat input.
EPA requested clarification from Ohio
EPA to determine that the language of
‘‘all stacks’’ was either not applicable to
stacks other than the subject boilers, or
to ensure that any existing non-boiler
emission units had emission limits that
are at least as stringent as the original
limit. On February 21, 2024, Ohio EPA
provided supplemental information
including clarification that no other
emission units were subject to the rule
and that the changes were modeled and
did not show an adverse impact on the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
The original FIP identified only a
single requirement for Stark County,
and that was for fossil fuel fired steam
generating unit boilers. The language
uses the term ‘‘any stack’’ which is
interpreted by Ohio to mean stacks for
fossil fuel fired steam generating units.
In 2006, Ohio EPA edited OAC rule
3745–18–82 to match the FIP language.
Ohio EPA carried over the ‘‘any stack’’
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
language to be consistent with the
original FIP language to indicate that
any ‘‘fossil fuel fired steam generating
units’’ at the facility had to abide by that
limit.
The Greif facility currently has no
coal/oil fired boilers and two natural gas
fired boilers. Additionally, the 2010 SO2
standard would require new permitting
and modeling for any new boilers and
so, if the facility adds a new boiler
subject to OAC rule 3745–18, Ohio EPA
must generate new facility specific
limits and language under the new,
more stringent, standard.
The Greif facility currently operates a
natural gas-fired flare to control the
emissions of hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
from an anaerobic digestor. The flare
emits SO2. Under CAA section 110(l),
EPA cannot approve a plan revision if
the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 7501 of
this title), or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter. EPA
reviewed Ohio EPA’s supplemental
information, including the
supplemental modeling demonstration
for the flare, and concluded that the
proposed rule revision is approvable
because it clarifies regulatory
requirements at the Greif facility, does
not result in emissions increases, and
does not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve the
removal the emission limits for the Greif
facility contained in OAC rule 3745–18–
82(F) from Ohio’s SIP.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, 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, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
Ohio rule OAC 3745–18–82(F), effective
April 16, 2023, discussed in section III
of this preamble. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these documents
generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 5 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 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).
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
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 action:
• 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 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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 subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
• 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 CAA.
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,
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. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
58101
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 Ohio EPA did not evaluate EJ
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 EJ for people of color, lowincome populations, and Indigenous
peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: July 10, 2024.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2024–15572 Filed 7–16–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58099-58101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15572]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2023-0318; FRL-11926-01-R5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Greif Packaging LLC
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision to the sulfur dioxide (SO2) regulations under
Chapter 3745-18 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). Ohio submitted
the request to EPA on June 8, 2023. The revision removes SO2
emissions limitations for fuel burning equipment at the Greif
Packaging, LLC facility located at 9420 Warmington Rd. SW in Massillon,
Ohio (Greif facility). The units that were subject to these
[[Page 58100]]
limits have been permanently shut down.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 16, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2023-0318 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 the docket. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI), Proprietary Business Information (PBI), 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. 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, PBI, or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Salamasick, Air and Radiation
Division (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6206,
[email protected]. The EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
I. What is the background for these actions?
On August 27, 1976, EPA promulgated an SO2 Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP), specifying SO2 emission limits
for fuel-burning equipment at the Greif facility (40 CFR
52.1881(a)(27)(v)). On December 28, 1979, the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) established rules in the OAC to control
SO2 emissions from fuel-burning equipment. Ohio EPA amended
OAC Chapter 3745-18-82(F) to align it with the FIP.
These rules included provisions for limiting SO2
emissions from the Greif facility under paragraph (F) of OAC rule 3745-
18-82. At that time, the Greif facility operated six boilers (B001 to
B006), with B005 and B006 having the capability to burn fuel oil in
addition to natural gas. On March 21, 2008 (56 FR 15083), EPA approved
rules for Franklin, Stark, and Summit Counties and for one source in
Sandusky County which replaced the FIP.
The Greif facility currently has no coal or oil-fired boilers. The
only remaining boilers are natural gas fired. Since the burning of
natural gas in fuel burning equipment is exempt from the requirements
of OAC rule 3745-18 under OAC rule 3745-18-06(A), the remaining boilers
are not subject to 3745-18-82(F).
II. What is EPA's analysis of Ohio's SIP revision?
On June 8, 2023, Ohio EPA submitted a revision to Ohio's SIP
removing SO2 boiler emissions limits for the Greif facility
contained in paragraph (F) of OAC rule 3745-18-82. EPA requested
supplemental information clarifying that the removal of paragraph (F)
did not impact any existing emission units at the facility. The
original language of paragraph (F) required that any owner or operator
at 9420 Warmington Rd. SW, Massillon, Ohio shall not cause or permit
the emission of sulfur dioxide from any stack at this facility in
excess of 0.50 pounds of sulfur dioxide per millions of British thermal
units actual heat input.
EPA requested clarification from Ohio EPA to determine that the
language of ``all stacks'' was either not applicable to stacks other
than the subject boilers, or to ensure that any existing non-boiler
emission units had emission limits that are at least as stringent as
the original limit. On February 21, 2024, Ohio EPA provided
supplemental information including clarification that no other emission
units were subject to the rule and that the changes were modeled and
did not show an adverse impact on the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
The original FIP identified only a single requirement for Stark
County, and that was for fossil fuel fired steam generating unit
boilers. The language uses the term ``any stack'' which is interpreted
by Ohio to mean stacks for fossil fuel fired steam generating units. In
2006, Ohio EPA edited OAC rule 3745-18-82 to match the FIP language.
Ohio EPA carried over the ``any stack'' language to be consistent with
the original FIP language to indicate that any ``fossil fuel fired
steam generating units'' at the facility had to abide by that limit.
The Greif facility currently has no coal/oil fired boilers and two
natural gas fired boilers. Additionally, the 2010 SO2
standard would require new permitting and modeling for any new boilers
and so, if the facility adds a new boiler subject to OAC rule 3745-18,
Ohio EPA must generate new facility specific limits and language under
the new, more stringent, standard.
The Greif facility currently operates a natural gas-fired flare to
control the emissions of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from an
anaerobic digestor. The flare emits SO2. Under CAA section
110(l), EPA cannot approve a plan revision if the revision would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title),
or any other applicable requirement of this chapter. EPA reviewed Ohio
EPA's supplemental information, including the supplemental modeling
demonstration for the flare, and concluded that the proposed rule
revision is approvable because it clarifies regulatory requirements at
the Greif facility, does not result in emissions increases, and does
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve the removal the emission limits for the
Greif facility contained in OAC rule 3745-18-82(F) from Ohio's SIP.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, 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, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Ohio rule OAC 3745-18-82(F), effective April 16, 2023,
discussed in section III of this preamble. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 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 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).
[[Page 58101]]
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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 action:
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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
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 CAA.
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,
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.
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 Ohio EPA did not evaluate EJ 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 EJ 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, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: July 10, 2024.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2024-15572 Filed 7-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
