thousands of job vacancies that employers are unable to ﬁll due to a short-
age of qualiﬁed workers. Without action on the part of the state, employers
in industries subject to such shortages of skilled workers m ay relocate
outside of New York in order to retain adequate numbers of ski lled
employees. This problem is made more acute by the action of other states
in the region to create programs to cultivate pools of skilled labor, creating
an incentive for employers in New York to relocate jobs outsi de of the
state. To address this problem, ETIP provides tax credit incentives to busi-
ness entities that conduct or procure eligible training or p rovide eligible
internship programs in advanced technology, life sciences , software
development or clean energy.
Business applicants to the program must ﬁrst establish that they are
engaged in a strategic industry, as evidenced by factors such as shortages
of skilled employees and technological disruption in the in dustry.
Furthermore, such applicants must demonstrate, among othe r things, that
they themselves will be providing or they will be procuring eligible train-
ing from an approved provider or providing an eligible internship program
in advanced technology, life sciences, software developme nt or clean
energy.
The revised rule updates the administrative aspects of the p rogram to
allow for the business entities themselves to receive the ta x credit when
they provide for such training in house in addition to when th ey utilize a
third party. In addition, it extends the eligible sectors fo r internship
programs under this program to include software developmen t and clean
energy internships.
The revised rule also clariﬁes: 1) that necessary travel and child care
service costs may be covered as part of the credit for the skills training and
internship components of the program; 2) that a business uti lizing the
internship component of this program will no longer have to demonstrate
that its interns make up less than 50% of its workforce; and 3) that busi-
ness entities participating in the program will have to comp lete a post
project survey for the Department.
COSTS:
I. Costs to private regulated parties (the business applicants): None. The
revised rule will not impose any additional costs to eligibl e business
applicants.
II. Costs to the regulating agency for the implementation and continued
administration of the rule: None.
III. Costs to the State government: None.
IV . Costs to local governments: None. The revised rule will not impose
any costs on local governments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES:
None. There are no local government mandates associated with ETIP.
PAPERWORK:
The rule updates qualiﬁcation rules and application proced ures for
ETIP. The rule entails certain paperwork burdens including materials to be
submitted as part of applications for tax credits, additional documents the
Commissioner may request from applicants as part of his evaluation of ap-
plications, and certain records that must be maintained by p rogram
participants for auditing purposes.
DUPLICATION:
The revised rule amends the existing regulations of the Comm issioner
of the Department of Economic Development, Part 250 of 5 NYCRR. Ac-
cordingly, there is no risk of duplication in the adoption of the revised
rule.
ALTERNATIVES:
No alternatives were considered with regard to creating a ne w rule in
response to the statutory requirement. The rule updates pro cedures for
business entities to apply to ETIP. This action is necessary in order to
clarify how qualifying businesses in strategic industries may receive
program beneﬁts and puts the regulations in conformity with the ETIP
statute.
FEDERAL STANDARDS:
There are no federal standards applicable to ETIP; it is pure ly a state
program that offers tax beneﬁts to business entities in strategic industries
incurring qualifying costs for eligible training or an elig ible internship
program in advanced technology. Therefore, the revised rul e does not
exceed any federal standard.
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:
The affected agency (Department of Economic Development) a nd any
applicants to ETIP will be able to achieve compliance with the regulation
as soon as it is adopted.
Revised Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Participation in the Employee Training Incentive Program ( “ETIP”) is
entirely at the discretion of qualifying business entities. Neither statute nor
the rule impose any obligation on any local government or business entity
to participate in the program. The rule does not impose any ad verse eco-
nomic impact or compliance requirements on small businesse s or local
governments. In fact, the proposed rule may have a positive e conomic
impact on small businesses. Only small businesses, those with one hundred(100) employees or fewer, are eligible to apply to ETIP for beneﬁts associ-
ated with providing an eligible internship program.
Because it is evident from the nature of the rule that it will have either
no impact or a positive impact on small businesses and local government,
no further afﬁrmative steps were needed to ascertain that fa ct and none
were taken. Accordingly, a regulatory ﬂexibility analysis for small busi-
nesses and local governments is not required and one has not b een
prepared.
Revised Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
The Employee Training Incentive Program is a statewide busi ness assis-
tance program. Strategic businesses in rural areas of New Yo rk State are
eligible to apply to participate in the program entirely at t heir discretion.
Municipalities are not eligible to participate in the Program. The rule does
not impose any special reporting, record keeping or other co mpliance
requirements on private entities in rural areas. Therefore, the rule will not
have a substantial adverse economic impact on rural areas no r on the
reporting, record keeping or other compliance requirement s on public or
private entities in such rural areas. Accordingly, a rural a rea ﬂexibility
analysis is not required and one has not been prepared.
Revised Job Impact Statement
The rule updates administrative procedures for business en tities to ap-
ply to the Employee Training Incentive Program (“ETIP”) for tax credit
beneﬁts associated with providing eligible training to their employees, or
an eligible internship program in advanced technology, lif e sciences,
software development or clean energy. The program aims to in duce
employers to provide training in order to cultivate a pool of skilled work-
ers who can meet the requirements for unﬁlled positions in st rategic
industries. The rule will not have a substantial adverse impact on jobs and
employment opportunities; rather, the program is intended to increase
employment opportunities.
Because it is evident from the nature of the rulemaking that it will have
either no impact or a positive impact on job and employment op portuni-
ties, no further afﬁrmative steps were needed to ascertain t hat fact and
none were taken. Accordingly, a job impact statement is not required and
one has not been prepared.
Assessment of Public Comment
The agency received no public comment.
Department of Environmental
Conservation
PROPOSED RULE MAKING
HEARING(S) SCHEDULED
Expanded Polystyrene Foam Container and Polystyrene Loose
Fill Packaging Reduction
I.D. No. ENV-36-21-00003-P
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Pro-
cedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:
Proposed Action: Addition of Part 353 to Title 6 NYCRR.
Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law, sections 1-0101,
3-0301, art. 27, title 30, section 27-3003(2)
Subject: Expanded Polystyrene Foam Container and Polystyrene Loose
Fill Packaging Reduction.
Purpose: Implementation of the expanded polystyrene foam container and
loose ﬁll packaging ban in Environmental Conservation Law, art. 27, Title
30.
Public hearing(s) will be held at: 1:00 p.m., Nov. 15, 2021 at Virtual
Electronic Webinar.
Interpreter Service: Interpreter services will be made available to hearing
impaired persons, at no charge, upon written request submitted within rea-
sonable time prior to the scheduled public hearing. The writ ten request
must be addressed to the agency representative designated in the paragraph
below.
Accessibility: All public hearings have been scheduled at places reason-
ably accessible to persons with a mobility impairment.
Substance of proposed rule (Full text is posted at the follow ing State
website: https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/propregu lations.html
#public): This rulemaking adds a new Part 353, Expanded Polystyrene
Foam Container and Loose Fill Packaging Reduction, to set fo rth theNYS Register/September 8, 2021 Rule Making Activities
6requirements of Title 30 of Article 27 of the Environmental Conservation
Law with respect to the prohibition on expanded polystyrene foam
containers and loose ﬁll packaging; ﬁnancial hardship waiv er application
process; cost comparison analysis for alternative packagi ng; deﬁnition of
the terms “comparable cost” and “undue ﬁnancial hardship;” and hardship
waiver approval, renewal, and revocation criteria.
Subpart 353-1 General Provisions
A new Subpart 353-1 sets forth the purpose and applicability and the
deﬁnitions used in the regulations. Key statutory terms, su ch as “pre-
packaged” and “single-use” are deﬁned. This Subpart also ad dresses
exemptions, violations and enforcement, severability, an d preemption,
including how a county can ﬁle a written declaration of its intent to enforce
its local law as long as the law provides environmental protection equal to
or greater than the state law and Part 353.
Subpart 353-2 Expanded Polystyrene Foam Container and Loos e Fill
Packaging Ban
A new Subpart 353-2 establishes the prohibitions related to the sale, of-
fer for sale, and distribution of expanded polystyrene foam containers and
polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging. It addresses eligibility criteria for facili-
ties and covered food service providers who may apply for a ﬁn ancial
hardship waiver from certain requirements in the law and the application
process. This Subpart also deﬁnes the terms “comparable cost” and “undue
ﬁnancial hardship,” as these terms relate to the approval cr iteria for a
ﬁnancial hardship waiver, and addresses hardship waiver ap proval, re-
newal, and revocation.
Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be
obtained from: Amy Bloomﬁeld, NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation, 21 South Putt Corners Rd., New Paltz, NY 12561 , (845)
256-3177, email: amy.bloomﬁeld@dec.ny.gov
Data, views or arguments may be submitted to: Same as above.
Public comment will be received until: November 22, 2021.
Additional matter required by statute: Pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL,
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, an Environment al Assess-
ment Form, determination of signiﬁcance (negative declara tion), and
Coastal Assessment Form have been prepared and are on ﬁle wit h the
Department.
This rule was not under consideration at the time this agency submitted
its Regulatory Agenda for publication in the Register.
Summary of Regulatory Impact Statement (Full text is posted at the fol-
lowing State website: https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulatio ns/
propregulations.html#public):
Introduction
A new Title 30 of Article 27 of the Environmental Conservatio n Law
(ECL), “Expanded polystyrene foam container and polystyre ne loose ﬁll
packaging ban,” went into effect on April 3, 2020, and establ ished a ban
on disposable food service containers that contain expande d polystyrene
foam and polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging. This rulemaking is intended to
implement the provisions of the “Expanded polystyrene foam container
and polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging ban.”
Effective January 1, 2022, no covered food service provider or store
(retail or wholesale) will be allowed to sell, offer for sale , or distribute
disposable food service containers that contain expanded polystyrene foam
in New York State. In addition, no manufacturer or store will be allowed
to sell, offer for sale, or distribute polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging (com-
monly referred to as packing peanuts) in the state. “Covered food service
provider” means a person engaged in the business of selling or distributing
prepared food or beverages for on-premises or off-premises consumption.
Title 30 preempts all local laws, ordinances or regulations governing the
sale, offer for sale, or distribution of disposable food ser vice containers
containing expanded polystyrene foam and polystyrene loos e ﬁll
packaging. However, there are exemptions that are described. Title 30 also
includes a ﬁnancial hardship waiver component for covered f ood service
providers and facilities that meet certain criteria. Deﬁni ng terms such as
“comparable costs” and “undue ﬁnancial hardship and the det ails of the
ﬁnancial hardship waiver application are necessary to acco mplish the
intent of the ban.
1. Statutory Authority
The Department’s statutory authority to undertake the deve lopment of
regulations concerning the provisions of the expanded poly styrene foam
container and polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging ban in Title 30 of Article 27
of the ECL is found in ECL Sections 1-0101, 3-0301, and 27-3003.
2. Legislative Objectives
The legislative objectives for Title 30 build on the accomplishments of
other laws that reduce the negative environmental and community impacts
of problematic, disposable, single-use plastic items. Plastic pollution from
expanded polystyrene foam has been detected in the environment in New
York state, other parts of the United States, and globally. I t is a top
contributor to plastic pollution that persists in the environment and nega-
tively affects natural resources, ﬁsh and wildlife habitats, and litters com-munities and natural areas. In addition, foam containers an d loose ﬁll
packaging, such as packing peanuts, do not contribute to sus tainable
materials management solutions as they are not accepted in the majority of
recycling programs in New York State because the foam is a low value
and difﬁcult to recycle material. The need to ban these materials is being
recognized through a growing number of foam bans across the c ountry,
around the world, and through the voluntary discontinued us e of foam
products by large corporations.
3. Needs and Beneﬁts
Title 30 is intended to move consumers, businesses, government agen-
cies, and non-proﬁts away from the wasteful and environmentally damag-
ing practice of using disposable single-use expanded polys tyrene foam
containers and loose ﬁll packaging.
4. Costs
While the regulations will not add any additional direct cos ts to the
regulated parties, the requirements of the law itself and its ban on expanded
polystyrene foam disposable food service containers and loose ﬁll packag-
ing may impact costs for regulated entities, including the p ossibility of
increased costs for covered food service providers if the purchase and use
of food service containers that do not contain expanded polystyrene foam
cost more than products containing expanded polystyrene foam. However,
there are many cost competitive alternatives. Although expanded polysty-
rene foam containers and loose ﬁll are common, a variety of al ternatives
exist that are readily available, many of which are recyclable or com-
postable, biodegradable, or reusable, further increasing the environmental
beneﬁts of the expanded polystyrene foam container and loos e ﬁll ban,
and appealing to customers who are increasingly looking for safer,
environmentally preferable options. A cost comparison ana lysis from the
Takoma Park Public Works Department (TPPWD) in Takoma, Mary land
describes the various cost differences of different foam al ternatives (See
https://documents-takomapark.s3.amazonaws.com/publi c-works/
polystyrene-ban/PW-20150624-cost-analysis-hand-out. pdf (last visited
May 4, 2021)). Some regulated entities may have an increased cost associ-
ated with alternative packaging, but these costs will vary d epending on
what alternative container or packaging material is chosen , what type of
container or packaging needs to be replaced, (e.g., cups and plates), and
the vendor chosen. The expanded polystyrene foam container and loose
ﬁll packaging ban also contains a ﬁnancial hardship waiver p rovision if
compliance would create an undue ﬁnancial hardship for certain facilities
and covered food service providers. The proposed regulatio ns will not
incur additional costs to the Department or local governments.
5. Local Government Mandates
This proposal does not directly mandate the expenditure of funds by lo-
cal governments and should not negatively affect local gove rnment
operations. If a local government agency applies for a ﬁnanc ial hardship
waiver, the local government agency is responsible for appl ying for,
renewing, and keeping on ﬁle any approved hardship waiver ap proval.
Any county that enacts a polystyrene ban by local law, ordina nce, or
regulation that provides environmental protection equal to or greater than
the state law can ﬁle a written declaration with the Department to continue
implementing the local law. If a county ﬁles such a written de claration,
that county is responsible for submitting the written decla ration, keeping
declarations on ﬁle, and notifying the Department of any changes that oc-
cur to the local law, ordinance, or regulation. Neither of these options are
required or mandated.
6. Paperwork
Additional paperwork will only be required for covered enti ties who
apply for a ﬁnancial hardship waiver or a county with a local law provid-
ing environmental protection equal to or greater than the pr ovisions of
Title 30 or state regulations, which chooses to ﬁle a written declaration
with the Department.
7. Duplication
The proposed regulations do not duplicate any other federal or state
requirements.
8. Alternative Approaches
everal alternative approaches were considered prior to ini tiating this
rulemaking. One approach was to allow implementation to unf old based
on the language in the law. A second approach was to implement through
issuance of guidance, such as a series of fact sheets or frequ ently asked
questions. A third approach was to issue a program policy to e stablish
program requirements. All three alternatives were rejected because without
regulations, the three alternatives would be inadequate, w ould not carry
the full legal authority of regulations, and the intent of th e expanded
polystyrene foam container and loose ﬁll packaging ban will not be ac-
complished as intended.
9. Federal Standards
There are no federal standards related to a ban on expanded polystyrene
foam containers or loose ﬁll packaging.
10. Compliance Schedule
Title 30 will apply to the regulated entities beginning January 1, 2022,NYS Register/September 8, 2021 Rule Making Activities
7pursuant to the law. The Part 353 regulations will become eff ective 30
days after ﬁling with the Department of State.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
INTRODUCTION
A new Title 30 of Article 27 of the Environmental Conservatio n Law
(ECL), “Expanded polystyrene foam container and polystyre ne loose ﬁll
packaging ban” established a ban on disposable food service containers
that contain expanded polystyrene foam and polystyrene loose ﬁll packag-
ing, which goes into effect on January 1, 2022. This rulemaking is intended
to implement the provisions of the “Expanded polystyrene foam container
and polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging ban” by deﬁning statutory terms such
as “comparable costs” and “undue ﬁnancial hardship,” and se tting forth
the details of the ﬁnancial hardship waiver application process, which are
necessary to ensure the bans on expanded polystyrene foam co ntainers
and expanded polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging are implemented in a con-
sistent, efﬁcient and effective manner. The regulations wi ll also help
ensure that regulated entities clearly understand their co mpliance obliga-
tions and the process for obtaining a ﬁnancial hardship waiver.
1. EFFECT OF RULE
Part 353 implements Title 30 of ECL Article 27 of the ECL. The
implementation of the proposed regulations is not expected to have an
adverse effect on small businesses or local governments, ho wever the
enactment of the law itself may affect some small businesses . Although
the regulations will not add direct costs to the regulated pa rties, many of
the entities affected by Title 30 may be small businesses.
Based on the categories of small businesses in the New York Sm all
Business Economic Proﬁle for 2018 by the U.S. Small Business Adminis-
tration, Ofﬁce of Advocacy, (https://www.sba.gov/sites/ default/ﬁles/
advocacy/2018-Small-Business-Proﬁles-NY.pdf (last vis ited May 3,
2021), which provides data regarding small businesses in New York State,
the categories which could potentially be impacted by the la w include
retail trade, accommodation and food services, healthcare and social assis-
tance, wholesale trade, manufacturing, and educational se rvices. These
categories make up 620,380 New York State small businesses.
The number of these small businesses that could be affected by the law
and regulations, because they currently manufacture, sell or distribute
expanded polystyrene foam products that will be banned under the law, is
unknown. However, the number of small business affected is v ery likely
less than the total number of businesses documented in this report due to a
few factors. For instance, many municipalities in New York already have
local laws banning expanded polystyrene foam products, inc luding the
counties of Albany, Dutchess, Nassau, Putnam, Suffolk, Uls ter, and
Westchester, as well as New York City and the City of Oswego. Conse-
quently, about sixty-six percent (66%) of the population in this state is al-
ready subject to a local law banning expanded polystyrene foam products.
There are also businesses that have voluntarily stopped usi ng expanded
polystyrene foam containers and packaging. Once the expanded polysty-
rene foam ban goes into effect on January 1, 2022, the law and regulations
will apply equally to local governments, except for those which currently
have a ban in place, as indicated in the law. The law does not apply in New
York City because Title 30 does not apply in a city with a popul ation of
one million or more that has a local law in place restricting the sale, offer
for sale, or distribution of expanded polystyrene containers and polysty-
rene loose ﬁll packaging. In addition, any local law, ordina nce or regula-
tion of any county will not be preempted if such local law prov ides
environmental protection equal to or greater than Title 30 or the proposed
Part 353 regulations, and the county ﬁles a written declaration of its intent
to administer and enforce such county law with the Department.
Although expanded polystyrene foam is often chosen for its l ow cost,
insulating, and cushioning properties, there are many cost competitive
alternatives to foam containers and packaging. Materials s uch as rigid
plastic, paper, aluminum, plant ﬁbers and starches, biopla stics, and reus-
able items are readily available from many retail or online s tores. Some
covered food service providers and stores may have increase d costs as-
sociated with alternative packaging, but these costs will v ary depending
on what alternative is chosen and the type of container or packaging being
replaced. The regulations should have little to no effect on regulated par-
ties who do not currently sell, offer for sale, or distribute banned items. As
the ban goes into effect and more entities purchase alternative packaging,
this may drive down the cost of alternatives. There are some a lternatives
that are similar in cost, while others are more costly. Though some materi-
als may show a cost increase, the costs for commonly availabl e alterna-
tives do not appear to be substantial. The law and proposed regulations do
not require speciﬁc alternatives to be used; the alternativ es just cannot
contain expanded polystyrene foam. Contamination in the re cycling
stream caused by expanded polystyrene foam containers and l oose ﬁll
packaging could decrease, potentially reducing costs associated with con-
taminated recyclables and increasing the value and marketa bility of
recyclables.
To the extent that stores and manufacturers required to comp ly withTitle 30 are small businesses, those stores and manufacture rs will see a
decline in sales of banned products within the state. Stores and manufac-
tures that are small businesses that sell alternative containers and packag-
ing could realize an increase in sales.
There are no speciﬁc requirements for local governments, un less a
county chooses to ﬁle a written declaration with the Department, or a local
government agency applies for a ﬁnancial hardship waiver; however, nei-
ther of these actions are required.
2. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
With respect to the requirements related to Title 30, there w ill be a
change in current business practices for covered food servi ce providers,
stores and manufacturers still selling, offering for sale o r distributing
banned products, as they must comply with the ban by January 1 , 2022.
The law and regulations do not require speciﬁc reporting or r ecordkeep-
ing, except to the extent that covered food service providers and facilities
who choose to apply for a ﬁnancial hardship waiver will be req uired to
complete an application for a waiver and if the waiver is approved, the ap-
proval must be retained and available for inspection at the f acility or
covered food service provider.
There are no speciﬁc compliance requirements for local gove rnments
related to Title 30 or proposed Part 353 unless a county does not want its
local law to be preempted and ﬁles a written declaration with the Depart-
ment or a local agency applies for a ﬁnancial hardship waiver . These ac-
tions may be pursued but are not required.
3. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
There are no new professional services anticipated to be req uired for
small businesses or local governments.
4. COMPLIANCE COSTS
As noted above, while the regulations will not add additiona l direct
costs to small businesses or local governments, the enactme nt of the law
itself may impact costs for regulated entities. Many of the entities affected
may be small businesses.
With respect to the costs related to Title 30 for covered food service
providers and stores that sell, offer for sale or distribute expanded
polystyrene foam containers or loose ﬁll packaging, there are a variety of
alternative containers and packaging, many of which are cost-competitive
and readily available. Some covered food service providers and stores
may have increased costs associated with alternative packaging, but these
costs will vary depending on what alternative is chosen. For example,
switching to reusable containers can save money by reducing disposable
food service ware costs, preventing litter, and lowering wa ste collection
and disposal costs. The regulations should have little to no effect on
regulated parties who do not currently sell, offer for sale, or distribute
products that will be banned. As the ban goes into effect and more entities
purchase alternatives, this may drive down the cost of alternatives. Some
alternatives are similar in cost and some will cost more. In a cost analysis
performed in Maryland, (See https://takomaparkmd.gov/go vernment/
police/neighborhood-services/polystyrene-ban/ (last visited May 3, 2021);
https://documents-takomapark.s3.amazonaws.com/publi c-works/
polystyrene-ban/PW-20150624-cost-for-business-fact- sheet.pdf) it was
estimated that alternatives to expanded polystyrene foam w ill cost
anywhere from $0.04 cents to $0.10 more per unit than expande d
polystyrene foam items, however costs vary. Any increase in cost would
differ based on the quantity of expanded polystyrene foam co ntainers or
loose ﬁll packaging a business is selling or distributing. To the extent that
stores and manufacturers required to comply with Title 30 are small busi-
nesses, those stores and manufacturers will see a decline in sales of banned
items within New York State. Stores and manufactures that are small busi-
nesses that sell alternative containers and packaging coul d realize an
increase in sales.
5. ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY
The requirements related to Title 30 prohibiting the sale, o ffer for sale
or distribution of certain expanded polystyrene foam containers and loose
ﬁll packaging are not anticipated to be a technological chal lenge since
many alternative containers and packaging already exist to day. With re-
spect to economic impacts, as stated in the Compliance Costs section,
some covered food service providers and stores may have increased costs
associated with alternative packaging, but costs will vary depending on
what alternative is chosen and the type of container or packa ging being
replaced. The regulations should have little to no effect on regulated par-
ties who do not currently sell or distribute expanded polyst yrene foam
products that will be banned under the law. There are no econo mic or
technological impacts anticipated for local governments r elated to the
expanded polystyrene foam container and loose ﬁll packaging ban.
6. MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACTS
Any adverse economic impacts or additional costs associate d with
compliance with the implementation of Title 30 are the resul t of the
Legislature’s enactment of the ban on expanded polystyrene foam
container and polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging ban. Part 353 will not result
in any additional direct costs or additional adverse impacts to small busi-NYS Register/September 8, 2021 Rule Making Activities
8nesses or local governments that will not already occur as a r esult of the
law.
Part 353 will implement Title 30’s ﬁnancial hardship waiver provisions,
which will help to minimize adverse impacts. Covered food se rvice
providers that meet certain criteria (have an annual gross i ncome under
$500,000 per location, do not operate 10 or more locations in New York
State, and are not operated according to a franchise agreement), as well as
facilities operated by a not-for-proﬁt corporation or by a federal, state, or
local government agency that provide food and meals to food i nsecure
individuals, may request from the Department a renewable 12-month hard-
ship waiver of the requirements of Title 30. Hardship waiver s may be
granted for one or more disposable food service containers t o a covered
food service provider that demonstrates there is no alterna tive product of
comparable cost that is not composed of expanded polystyren e foam and
that the purchase or use of an alternative product would crea te an undue
ﬁnancial hardship.
The Department intends to undertake efforts to minimize pot ential
impacts by engaging stakeholders through outreach, education, and guid-
ance documents. Small businesses that are manufacturers of alternative
containers and packaging could see an increase in sales and employment.
7. SMALL BUSINESS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPA-
TION
The Department will hold meetings with interested stakeholders, includ-
ing groups representing small businesses, as well as local g overnment to
explain the requirements of the law and collect feedback. The Department
will be evaluating the feedback for input into the proposed r ulemaking.
The proposed regulations are intended to merely implement t he require-
ments of the law.
8. CURE PERIOD OR OTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR AMELIORA-
TIVE ACTION
This rule does not establish or modify a violation or penalti es associ-
ated with a violation; the law establishes the penalties for violations in
Section 71-2730 of Article 71 of the ECL. While the law went into effect
immediately, the ban on expanded polystyrene foam containe rs and
polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging in Article 27, Title 30 will not take effect
until January 1, 2022, as required by the law. The regulations will be in ef-
fect 30 days after ﬁling with the Department of State.
9. INITIAL REVIEW OF RULE
The initial review of this rule shall occur no later than in th e third
calendar year after the year in which the rule is adopted.
Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
INTRODUCTION
A new Title 30 of Article 27 of the Environmental Conservatio n Law
(ECL), “Expanded polystyrene foam container and polystyre ne loose ﬁll
packaging ban” established a ban on disposable food service containers
that contain expanded polystyrene foam and polystyrene loose ﬁll packag-
ing, which goes into effect on January 1, 2022. This rulemaking is intended
to implement the provisions of the “Expanded polystyrene foam container
and polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging ban” by deﬁning statutory terms such
as “comparable costs” and “undue ﬁnancial hardship,” and se tting forth
the details of the ﬁnancial hardship waiver application process, which are
necessary to ensure the bans on expanded polystyrene foam co ntainers
and expanded polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging are implemented in a con-
sistent, efﬁcient and effective manner. The regulations wi ll also help
ensure that regulated entities clearly understand their co mpliance obliga-
tions and the process for obtaining a ﬁnancial hardship waiver.
1. TYPES AND ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF RURAL AREAS
For purposes of this Rural Area Flexibility Analysis (RAFA) , “rural
area” means those portions of the state so deﬁned by Executive Law sec-
tion 481(7). SAPA section 102(10). Under Executive Law section 481(7),
rural areas are deﬁned as “counties within the state having l ess than two
hundred thousand population, and the municipalities, individuals, institu-
tions, communities, programs and such other entities or res ources as are
found therein. In counties of two hundred thousand or greater population,
‘rural areas’ means towns with population densities of one h undred ﬁfty
persons or less per square mile, and the villages, individuals, institutions,
communities, programs and such other entities or resources as are found
therein.” There are 44 counties in New York State (State) that have popula-
tions of less than 200,000 people and 71 towns in non-rural counties where
the population densities are less than 150 people per square mile.
The proposed regulations apply statewide (excluding New Yo rk City),
including rural areas of the state. The law and regulations do not apply in
cities with a population of one million or more that have a local polystyrene
ban in place (this includes New York City). In addition, any l ocal law,
ordinance or regulation of any county will not be preempted if such local
law provides environmental protection equal to or greater than Title 30 or
the proposed Part 353 regulations, and the county ﬁles a writ ten declara-
tion of its intent to administer and enforce such county law w ith the
Department. All applicable areas of the state, including stores and covered
food service providers, located in rural areas that sell, offer for sale or dis-tribute expanded polystyrene foam containers and stores and manufactur-
ers located in rural areas that sell, offer for sale or distri bute expanded
polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging (commonly known as packing peanuts)
could be affected directly or indirectly by the law and the pr oposed
rulemaking.
2. REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING AND OTHER COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENTS; AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
While the regulations will not add any mandatory reporting, recordkeep-
ing, other compliance requirements, or the need for additio nal profes-
sional services to regulated entities, the enactment of the law itself requires
regulated entities to comply with the ban on expanded polyst yrene foam
disposable food service containers and loose ﬁll packaging . Regulated
entities are state-wide, including in rural areas.
The additional administrative requirements only relate to those entities
that elect to complete an application for a ﬁnancial hardshi p waiver or
counties that enact a polystyrene ban through a local law tha t provides
environmental protection equal to or greater than the state law and choose
to ﬁle a written declaration with the Department to continue to administer
and enforce the county law. Title 30 provides that local poly styrene bans
will be preempted by the state law, except for laws in counties that choose
to ﬁle such written declaration. A ﬁnancial hardship waiver is available for
entities that meet certain requirements related to the prohibition on selling,
offering for sale or distributing disposable food service c ontainers that
contain expanded polystyrene foam. The hardship waiver is t he only
component of the regulations that would result in any additional adminis-
trative obligations, but the waiver is optional and not requ ired under the
Part 353 regulations. Additionally, a county that enacts a polystyrene ban
by local law that provides environmental protection equal t o or greater
than the state law could choose to ﬁle a written declaration with the Depart-
ment if it intends to continue administering and enforcing i ts local law.
However, the written declaration is also optional, and, if p ursued, would
involve minimal paperwork.
3. COSTS
While the regulations will not add any additional direct cos ts to
regulated parties, the requirements of the law itself and its ban on expanded
polystyrene foam disposable food service containers and loose ﬁll packag-
ing may impact costs for regulated entities, including those in rural areas.
Beginning January 1, 2022, the law prohibits covered food service provid-
ers and stores from selling, offering for sale, or distribut ing disposable
food service containers that contain expanded polystyrene foam in New
York State. Depending on the type of container and alternati ve material
chosen, alternative acceptable containers have the potent ial to cost more.
Therefore, there is a possibility of increased costs for covered food service
providers if the purchase and use of food service containers that do not
contain expanded polystyrene foam cost more than products c ontaining
expanded polystyrene foam. In a cost analysis performed in M aryland,
(See https://takomaparkmd.gov/government/police/neig hborhood-
services/polystyrene-ban/ (last visited May 3, 2021); htt ps://documents-
takomapark.s3.amazonaws.com/public-works/polystyren e-ban/PW-
20150624-cost-for-business-fact-sheet.pdf) it was esti mated that
alternatives to expanded polystyrene foam will cost anywhere from $0.04
cents to $0.10 more per unit than expanded polystyrene foam i tems,
however costs vary. Any increase in cost would differ based on the quantity
of expanded polystyrene foam containers a business is selli ng or
distributing. If retail and wholesale stores choose to provide alternatives in
place of expanded polystyrene foam containers, these could cost more for
stores to purchase than expanded polystyrene foam items. Ho wever, the
likely increase in demand for alternative products could in crease sales of
alternative products, potentially offsetting any higher c osts to purchase
these items, and possibly generating increased proﬁts from alternatives.
This prohibition applies across the state — in urban, suburban and rural
areas — and variation in costs for different types of public a nd private
entities in rural areas is not anticipated. Manufacturers of disposable food
service containers that contain expanded polystyrene foam do exist in
some locations across New York State. However, the Department has not
identiﬁed any manufacturers of banned products that are loc ated in rural
areas of the state who could realize decreased sales of banned products or
decreased proﬁts. There are no direct costs to manufactures and distribu-
tors from the regulations or the law itself. The law and regulations will be
applied across the state equally, except for cities to which the law does not
apply, or counties who ﬁle a written declaration to administer and enforce
their own local law, according to the requirements in the state law.
Manufacturers and distributors of disposable food service containers
that do not contain expanded polystyrene foam could experie nce an
increase in sales due to a likely shift to other containers by covered food
service providers and stores. Due to the many options currently available
on the market, it is not anticipated that there will be a lack o f supply of
alternative disposable food service containers that do not contain expanded
polystyrene foam. The law and proposed regulations may also result in an
increased focus on reusable containers as an alternative an d a shift to aNYS Register/September 8, 2021 Rule Making Activities
9more circular system, which can also provide cost savings. T his would
again boost prospects for those businesses that provide alt ernatives.
Switching to reusable containers as an alternative can save money by
reducing disposable food service ware costs, prevent litte r, and lower
waste collection services.
Title 30 also contains a ban on polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging. Begin-
ning January 1, 2022, no manufacturer or store shall sell, offer for sale, or
distribute polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging in New York Stat e. Similar to
the above, alternative packaging may cost more. If stores replace expanded
polystyrene foam loose ﬁll packaging with alternatives, it may cost more
to purchase some of these items. However, demand for these it ems will
likely increase, and increased sales of alternatives could offset any
increased costs to purchase and provide alternative packaging options. In
reviewing some existing available alternative packaging o ptions, the
Department found cost competitive options, with some even p roviding a
cost savings. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, a nd stores offer
product lines beyond expanded polystyrene foam loose ﬁll pa ckaging,
including alternatives or items that will not be banned under the law, which
can continue to be sold in New York State after the ban goes int o effect.
No direct costs to manufactures and distributors from the re gulations or
the law itself are anticipated. The prohibitions within the legislation do not
favor one industry over another but rather promote a shift to more
environmentally preferable solutions to ensure a healthy f uture for all in
New York State.
4. MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT
Part 353 will implement Title 30’s ﬁnancial hardship waiver provisions,
which will help to minimize adverse impacts on facilities an d covered
food service providers in rural areas. Covered food service providers that
meet certain criteria (have an annual gross income under $500,000 per lo-
cation, do not operate 10 or more locations in New York State, and are not
operated according to a franchise agreement), as well as facilities operated
by a not-for-proﬁt corporation or by a federal, state, or loc al government
agency that provide food and meals to food insecure individu als, may
request from the Department a renewable 12-month hardship w aiver of
the requirements of Title 30. Hardship waivers may be granted for one or
more disposable food service containers to a covered food service provider
that demonstrates there is no alternative product of comparable cost that is
not composed of expanded polystyrene foam and that the purchase or use
of an alternative product would create an undue ﬁnancial hardship.
5. RURAL AREA PARTICIPATION
The Department held one widely-attended virtual public meeting, which
was advertised all over the state and to which stakeholders f rom all over
the state, including rural areas, were invited and also atte nded. This
provided public and private interests in rural areas with the opportunity to
participate in the rule making process without having to tra vel to an in-
person meeting. Additional meetings with interested stake holders will be
held to explain the requirements of the law and stakeholders in rural areas
will again be invited to attend. The Department will be accep ting public
comments and evaluating the feedback and comments for input into the
proposed rulemaking. The proposed regulations are intende d to merely
implement and clarify the requirements of the law.
6. INITIAL REVIEW OF RULE
The initial review of this rule shall occur no later than in th e third
calendar year after the year in which the rule is adopted.
Job Impact Statement
INTRODUCTION
A new Title 30 of Article 27 of the Environmental Conservatio n Law
(ECL), “Expanded polystyrene foam container and polystyre ne loose ﬁll
packaging ban” established a ban on disposable food service containers
that contain expanded polystyrene foam and polystyrene loose ﬁll packag-
ing, which goes into effect on January 1, 2022. This rulemaking is intended
to implement the provisions of the “Expanded polystyrene foam container
and polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging ban” by deﬁning statutory terms such
as “comparable costs” and “undue ﬁnancial hardship,” and se tting forth
the details of the ﬁnancial hardship waiver application process, which are
necessary to ensure the bans on expanded polystyrene foam co ntainers
and expanded polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging are implemented in a con-
sistent, efﬁcient and effective manner. The regulations wi ll also help
ensure that regulated entities clearly understand their co mpliance obliga-
tions and the process for obtaining a ﬁnancial hardship waiver.
1. NATURE OF IMPACT
The implementation of the proposed rule is not expected to ha ve an
adverse effect on jobs or employment opportunities. Any job -related
impacts associated with compliance with the implementatio n of Title 30
are the result of the Legislature’s enactment of the ban on ex panded
polystyrene foam container and polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging ban. Part
353 will not result in any additional direct costs or additio nal adverse
impacts to jobs or employment opportunities that will not already occur as
a result of the law.
Nothing being proposed in this rule is expected to result in diminishedeconomic activity, which typically results in adverse impa cts on employ-
ment opportunities. While the regulations will not add any additional direct
costs to the regulated parties, the requirements of the law itself and its ban
on expanded polystyrene foam disposable food service conta iners and
loose ﬁll packaging could impact costs for regulated entiti es, which, in
turn, could possibly have an effect on jobs.
Title 30 prohibits covered food service providers and store s from sell-
ing, offering for sale, or distributing disposable food ser vice containers
that contain expanded polystyrene foam in New York state. When this ban
on expanded polystyrene foam products takes effect on Janua ry 1, 2022,
demand for polystyrene containers is likely to decrease. Depending on the
type of container and material type, acceptable alternative containers have
the potential to cost more. Covered food service providers c ould experi-
ence an increase in costs if the purchase and use of food service containers
that do not contain expanded polystyrene foam cost more than products
containing expanded polystyrene foam. If increased food service container
costs cannot be passed on to customers, there potentially co uld be an ef-
fect on jobs if additional costs are so high that food service providers are
unable to retain current stafﬁng levels or are unable to hire additional
employees. However, this is not anticipated to be the case, a s there are
many cost competitive alternatives. Additionally, this rule implements the
ﬁnancial hardship waiver provisions in Title 30 wherein cer tain covered
food service providers and facilities may be granted a ﬁnanc ial hardship
waiver from the requirements of Title 30 for disposable food service
containers.
While the proposed regulations themselves will not directly affect jobs,
the enactment of the law itself may affect jobs for manufactu rers and
distributors who sell, offer for sale, or distribute banned items in New
York state, as there are manufacturers and distributors located in this state
who manufacture and/or distribute banned polystyrene prod ucts. When
the law becomes effective, or even before that time as stores prepare for
the ban, these businesses will see reduced sales of banned po lystyrene
products in New York state. Any time a business reduces sales of some
items, this could reduce proﬁts, and this could have an impac t on jobs.
However, the Department has reviewed some of the containers and
packaging offered by these manufactures and distributors, and both
manufacturers and distributors offer a diverse array of pro ducts for sale,
including items that are not banned under the law and can still be sold or
distributed in New York state. They may also offer alternati ve containers
and packaging that are allowed under the law and for which manufacturers
and distributors may see an increase in sales of those produc ts after the
law becomes effective. This could have a positive impact on employment
opportunities for businesses that manufacture, sell, or di stribute alterna-
tive containers and packaging. In addition, disposable foo d service
containers containing expanded polystyrene foam can be sold out of state,
in states without a ban.
Manufacturers and distributors of disposable food service containers
that do not contain expanded polystyrene foam could experie nce an
increase in sales as a result of the likely shift to other containers by covered
food service providers and stores. Due to the many options currently avail-
able on the market, it is not anticipated that there will be a lack of supply
of alternative disposable food service containers that do n ot contain
expanded polystyrene foam. The law and proposed regulation s may also
result in an increased focus on reusable containers as an alternative and a
shift to a more circular system. This would again boost prospects for those
companies that do not sell disposable food service containe rs containing
expanded polystyrene foam. Switching to reusable containe rs as an
alternative can save money by reducing disposable food serv ice ware
costs, preventing litter, and lowering fees for waste collection services.
Title 30 also contains a ban on polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging. Begin-
ning January 1, 2022, no manufacturer or store can sell, offer for sale, or
distribute polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging in New York Stat e. Similar to
the above, alternative packaging may cost more, but, as explained below,
this is not anticipated to have signiﬁcant job-related impacts. Manufactur-
ers, distributors, and stores that sell polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging do ex-
ist in some locations in this state and they will likely experience a decline
in sales of these products in New York State, which could nega tively
impact jobs. However, similar to the manufacturers of disposable food ser-
vice containers that contain expanded polystyrene foam, these companies
appear to have product lines beyond polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging that
can still be sold in this state after the ban goes into effect. Manufacturers,
distributors, and stores that sell acceptable alternative ﬁll packaging could
see an increase in sales due to a likely shift in purchasing for those that use
ﬁll packaging, which may also result in the need to expand pro duction,
and the need to hire more people. Some distributors currentl y advertise
starch packing peanuts as the packing peanuts with the fastest sales growth
for their business. In addition, the Department has reviewe d available
alternatives, and many cost competitive alternatives exist, such as packing
peanuts made from starch, with some alternatives even provi ding a cost
savings compared to polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging. Further, many avail-NYS Register/September 8, 2021 Rule Making Activities
10able alternatives are biodegradable, recyclable, or made o f recycled
content, increasing the environmental beneﬁts associated with the ban.
The prohibitions within the legislation do not favor one industry over an-
other, but rather promote a shift to more environmentally preferable solu-
tions to ensure a healthy future for all in New York State.
2. CATEGORIES AND NUMBERS AFFECTED
While the implementation of the proposed regulations is not expected
to have a substantial effect on jobs or employment opportunities, the cate-
gories of jobs that could be affected by the requirement of the law include:
(1) covered food service providers (persons engaged on the b usiness of
selling or distributing prepared food or beverages for on-premises or off-
premises consumption); (2) stores (retail or wholesale establishments other
than covered food service providers); (3) manufacturers or distributors of
disposable food containers; and (4) manufacturers or distr ibutors of
polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging. Covered food service prov iders include
retail food stores, delicatessens; grocery stores; restau rants; cafeterias;
coffee shops; hospitals, adult care facilities, and nursin g homes; and
elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities. Title 30 and
the proposed regulations allow covered food service providers and certain
facilities to apply for a ﬁnancial hardship waiver, which would reduce any
potential ﬁnancial impacts to eligible covered food servic e providers and
facilities.
Any job impacts would likely be experienced by manufacturer s or
distributors of disposable food service containers that co ntain expanded
polystyrene foam and manufactures of polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging
because these products will be banned from being sold or distributed under
the law. The number of jobs or employment opportunities at th ese busi-
nesses that will be affected by the law and regulations is unknown, but it is
estimated to be minimal. To the extent that any manufacturers and distribu-
tors of these products are located in New York, jobs could be n egatively
impacted if these entities rely heavily on the sale and distribution of food
service containers and loose ﬁll packaging made from expanded polysty-
rene foam and do not have the ability to shift to, or increase, the produc-
tion and distribution of other products. However, manufact urers of these
products typically manufacture other packaging and produc ts and could
shift product development to those market opportunity area s over time.
Manufacturers of reusable or disposable food service conta iners that do
not contain polystyrene foam and other non-polystyrene pac kaging ﬁll
could experience an increase in sales due to purchasing shifts by regulated
entities. Although it is difﬁcult to predict the impact of the law and regula-
tions on employment, there is potential for a small number of jobs to be
created due to the need for increased alternatives to expanded polystyrene
foam disposable food service containers and polystyrene lo ose ﬁll
packaging.
3. REGIONS OF ADVERSE IMPACT
Except for New York City, to which the proposed regulations do not ap-
ply because it has its own similar law banning expanded polys tyrene
containers and polystyrene loose ﬁll packaging, all covere d entities must
adhere to the same requirements regardless of where they are located in
this State. Therefore, there is no region of the State expect ed to be
adversely impacted from the proposed regulations more than other areas
of the State.
4. MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT
Section 27-3005 of the law outlines provisions related to a ﬁ nancial
hardship waiver and applying for a waiver. The proposed regu lations
implement Title 30’s ﬁnancial hardship waiver provisions b y addressing
ﬁnancial hardship waiver eligibility, applying for a waive r, approval
criteria, and renewal of a waiver in order to assist in minimi zing adverse
impacts for those entities that meet the requirements outli ned in Section
27-3005. Covered food service providers that meet certain c riteria (have
an annual gross income under $500,000 per location, do not operate 10 or
more locations in New York State, and are not operated accord ing to a
franchise agreement), as well as facilities operated by a no t-for-proﬁt
corporation or by a federal, state, or local government agency that provide
food and meals to food insecure individuals, may request from the Depart-
ment a renewable 12-month hardship waiver of the requiremen ts of Title
30. Hardship waivers may be granted for one or more disposable food ser-
vice containers to a covered food service provider that demonstrates there
is no alternative product of comparable cost that is not comp osed of
expanded polystyrene foam and that the purchase or use of an alternative
product would create an undue ﬁnancial hardship. In addition, the Depart-
ment intends to undertake efforts to minimize any potential impacts by
engaging stakeholders directly through outreach, education, and guidance
documents.
5. SELF-EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
The proposed regulations are not expected to negatively imp act self-
employment opportunities and may drive entrepreneurial en deavors for
those seeking to develop reusable food service containers, other allowable
alternative food service containers, or non-polystyrene l oose ﬁll
packaging.6. INITIAL REVIEW OF RULE
The initial review of this rule shall occur no later than in th e third
calendar year after the year in which the rule is adopted.
PROPOSED RULE MAKING
HEARING(S) SCHEDULED
Medium- and Heavy-Duty (MHD) Zero Emission Truck Annual
Sales Requirements and Large Entity Reporting
I.D. No. ENV-36-21-00004-P
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Pro-
cedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:
Proposed Action: Amendment of Parts 200 and 218 of Title 6 NYCRR.
Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law, sections 1-0101,
1-0301, 3-0303, 19-0103, 19-0105, 19-0107, 19-0301, 19-0303, 19-0305,
19-1101, 19-1103, 19-1105, 71-2103, 71-2105; Federal Clea n Air Act,
section 177 (42 USC 7507)
Subject: Medium- and heavy-duty (MHD) zero emission truck annual
sales requirements and large entity reporting.
Purpose: Annual zero emission MHD truck sales requirements for model
years 2025-2035. Report MHD volumes, operations, and locations.
Public hearing(s) will be held at: 2:00 p.m., Nov. 9, 2021 via electronic
webinar.
Instructions on how to “join” the hearing webinar and provid e an oral
statement will be published on the Department’s proposed re gulations
webpage for 6 NYCRR Part 218 by September 8, 2021. The propose d
regulations webpage for 6 NYCRR Part 218 may be accessed at: h ttps://
www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/propregulations.html
Persons who wish to receive the instructions by mail or telephone may
call the Department at (518) 402-9003. Please provide your ﬁ rst and last
name, address, and telephone number and reference the Part 2 18 public
comment hearing.
The Department will provide interpreter services for heari ng impaired
persons, and language interpreter services for individual s with difﬁculty
understanding or reading English, at no charge upon written request
submitted no later than October 19, 2021. The written request must be ad-
dressed to ALJ Michele M. Stefanucci, NYS DEC Ofﬁce of Hearings and
Mediation Services, 625 Broadway, 1st Floor, Albany, NY 12233-1550 or
emailed to ALJ Stefanucci at ohms@dec.ny.gov.
Interpreter Service: Interpreter services will be made available to hearing
impaired persons, at no charge, upon written request submitted within rea-
sonable time prior to the scheduled public hearing. The writ ten request
must be addressed to the agency representative designated in the paragraph
below.
Accessibility: All public hearings have been scheduled at places reason-
ably accessible to persons with a mobility impairment.
Substance of proposed rule (Full text is posted at the follow ing State
website: https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/propregu lations.html
#public): The New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion (Department) is proposing to amend 6 NYCRR Part 218 and Section
200.9. Section 200.9 is a list that cites Federal and Califor nia codes and
regulations that have been referenced by the Department while amending
Part 218. The purpose of the amendment is to revise the existing low emis-
sion vehicle (LEV) program to incorporate California’s Adv anced Clean
Truck (ACT) medium- and heavy-duty zero emission vehicle (Z EV)
standards. The Department is amending Sections 218-1.1, Ap plicability;
218-2.1, Prohibitions; 218-4.1, ZEV percentages; and addi ng a new 218-
4.2, Large Entity Reporting Requirement. The remaining Sections in Part
218 are unchanged.
Section 218-1.1(a) is amended to include ZEV standards for 2 025 and
subsequent model year medium-and heavy-duty trucks and to c orrect
miscellaneous typographical errors.
Section 218-2.1(a) is amended to update the sections being incorporated
by reference from the California Code of Regulations.
Section 218-4.1 is amended to incorporate California’s lat est (ZEV)
standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The proposed ACT amend-
ments would introduce ZEV sales requirements for all manufacturers that
sell vehicles in weight classes 2b through 8 (gross vehicle w eight rating
(GVWR) > 8,500 lbs.) in New York. The sales requirement would be a
percentage, varying by model year, vehicle class, and vehic le type of the
manufacturer’s annual New York sales volume for that model year. Start-
ing with MY 2025 in New York, manufacturers would incur deﬁci ts for
each vehicle sold that must be met with credits generated fro m selling
medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs or near zero emission vehicles (NZEVs).
Medium- and heavy-duty ZEV and NZEV credits may be generated ,NYS Register/September 8, 2021 Rule Making Activities
11