Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93239 

barcode (IMpb) with the proper 

cremated remains Service Type Code 

(STC) and include the proper Extra 

Services Code (ESC) in the Shipping 

Services File (see Publication 199 on 

PostalPro at postalpro.usps.com). 

b. International: 

1. When permitted by the destination 

country, cremated remains must be sent 

via Priority Mail Express International 

service. Mailers must verify that the 

destination country accepts Priority 

Mail Express International and cremated 

remains before mailing. 

2. Mailers must use one of the special 

Priority Mail Express cremated remains 

branded boxes available on usps.com. 

3. The item must be packaged as 

required in 451.3b and Packaging 

Instruction 10C. 

4. The contents ‘‘cremated remains’’ 

must be indicated on the applicable 

customs declaration form. 

* * * * * 

451.3 Packaging and Marking 

[Revise item b. as follows:] 

b. Powders and Cremated Remains. 

Dry materials that could cause soiling, 

damage, discomfort or destruction, upon 

escape (leakage) must be packaged in 

sift proof or other sealed primary 

containers and placed into sealed, 

durable, outer containers. 

Appendix C 

* * * * * 

USPS Packaging Instructions 10C 

[Revise opening paragraph as follows:] 

Cremated Remains 

Human or animal cremated remains 

in any state (e.g. ashes, keepsakes and 

jewelry) are permitted for mailing with 

restrictions, provided they are 

appropriately prepared according to 

section 451 and the following 

instructions. 

* * * * * 

[Revise the following sections as 

follows:] 

Mailability 

• International Mail: Permitted via 

Priority Mail Express International 

Service when permitted by the 

destination country (see the Individual 

Country Listings in the IMM). 

• Domestic Mail: Permitted via 

Priority Mail Express service only. 

Required Packaging 

Primary Container 

• International: A funeral urn is 

required as the inner container. It must 

be sealed and sift proof. 

• Domestic: The inner container must 

be strong and durable and be 

constructed in such a manner as to 

protect and securely contain the 

contents inside and it must be properly 

sealed so that it is sift proof. 

Note: A sift proof container is any vessel 

that does not allow loose powder to leak or 

sift out during transit. 

* * * * * 

[Revise the following sections as 

follows:] 

Outer Container 

All cremated remains mailings must 

utilize the USPS-produced Cremated 

Remains outer packaging, found on 

usps.com. 

Insert your inner container into a 

sealed plastic bag, then place in the 

shipping box and add padding to the 

bottom, sides, and top to ensure there is 

no movement of contents during transit. 

Note: It is recommended that you attach a 

slip of paper to the sealed plastic bag with 

the complete return and delivery addresses 

and the words ‘‘Cremated Remains’’ in the 

event the mailing label becomes detached 

from the outer container after acceptance. 

Marking 

Domestic: A complete return address 

and delivery address must be used. 

International: A complete return 

address and delivery address must be 

used. The mailer must indicate the 

contents (Cremated Remains) on the 

applicable customs declaration form. 

Documentation 

International: If available, and when 

required by the destination post, the 

cremation certificate should be attached 

to the outer packaging or made easily 

accessible. The sender is responsible for 

obtaining all the necessary 

documentation and permissions 

required by the national laws in the 

country of origin and the country of 

destination prior to dispatching these 

items.*** 

* * * * * 

Christopher Doyle, 

Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27537 Filed 11–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2024–0042; FRL 12249–01– 

R2] 

Air Plan Approval; New York; 

Knowlton Technologies LLC 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the State of New York’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) related to a Source-specific 

SIP (SSSIP) revision for Knowlton 

Technologies LLC, located at 213 

Factory Street, Watertown, New York 

(the Facility). The EPA is proposing to 

find that the control options in this 

SSSIP revision implement Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

with respect to volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from the 

relevant Facility sources, which are 

identified as two underground storage 

tanks holding virgin methanol. This 

SSSIP revision is intended to implement 

VOC RACT for the relevant Facility 

sources in accordance with the 

requirements for implementation of the 

2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. This 

proposed action will not interfere with 

ozone NAAQS requirements and meets 

all applicable requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 10, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket Number EPA–R02– 

OAR–2024–0042, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically 

through https://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or 

withdrawn. The EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, such as 

the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93240 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1Primary standards provide public health 

protection, including protecting the health of 

‘‘sensitive’’ populations such as asthmatics, 

children, and the elderly. Secondary standards 

provide public welfare protection, including 

protection against decreased visibility and damage 

to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 

2The New York Metro Area is part of the greater 

nonattainment area New York-N. New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT. 

3The DAR–20 cost threshold is based on 1994 

dollars. State of New York relies on the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 

inflationary calculator to adjust the RACT economic 

feasibility threshold over time for inflation. See 

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866, (212) 637–3565, or by email at 

longo.linda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information on regulatory 

background and the EPA’s technical 

findings relating to the Facility RACT, 

the reader can refer to the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) that is 

contained in the EPA docket assigned to 

this Federal Register document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation of New York’s 

Submission and RACT Analysis 

III. Environmental Justice Considerations 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Ground Level Ozone Formation 

Ground level ozone is predominantly 

a secondary air pollutant created by 

chemical reactions that occur when 

ozone precursors, including nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), chemically react in 

the presence of sunlight.1 Emissions 

from industrial facilities are 

anthropogenic sources of ozone 

precursors. The potential for groundlevel ozone formation tends to be 

highest during months with warmer 

temperatures and stagnant air masses. 

Ozone levels are thus generally higher 

during the summer months, which is 

often referred to as ‘‘the ozone season.’’ 

In New York, the ozone season is 

generally considered to be between 

April 15 and October 15, while the nonozone season is generally considered to 

be between October 16 and April 14. 

Ozone Nonattainment 

A geographic area of the United States 

that is not meeting the primary or 

secondary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) for ozone is 

described as a nonattainment area. 

Nonattainment areas are classified as 

either Marginal, Moderate, Serious, 

Severe, or Extreme. With respect to this 

proposed action, there are two relevant 

ozone NAAQS standards. First, on 

March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a 

revision to the ozone NAAQS, setting 

both the primary and secondary 

standards at 0.075 parts per million 

(ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time 

frame (2008 8-hour Ozone Standard). 

See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

Second, on October 1, 2015, the EPA 

lowered these standards to 0.070 ppm 

averaged over an 8-hour time frame 

(2015 8-hour Ozone Standard). See 80 

FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 

The State of New York has two ozone 

nonattainment areas: (1) Jamestown, and 

(2) the New York Metro Area,2

consisting of the Bronx County, Kings 

County, Nassau County, New York 

County, Queens County, Richmond 

County, Rockland County, Suffolk 

County, Westchester County. Under 

CAA section 184, the State of New York 

is located within the Ozone Transport 

Region (OTR), which means that it is 

subject to statewide RACT 

requirements. This Facility is not 

located in an ozone nonattainment area, 

but it is still required to implement 

RACT because it is located within the 

OTR. 

Federal RACT Requirements 

RACT is defined as the lowest 

emission limit that a source is capable 

of meeting through the application of 

control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility. The CAA section 

182, Plan Submissions and 

Requirements, requires States with 

ozone nonattainment areas to include in 

their statewide SIPs, among other 

things, provisions to require the 

implementation of RACT. CAA section 

184(b)(2) sets forth the requirement to 

establish control measures to implement 

RACT for major sources of VOC located 

in the OTR. The State of New York is 

located within the OTR, and thus the 

State is required to implement RACT for 

all major sources of VOC within the 

State. RACT for a particular source is 

determined on a case-by-case basis, 

considering the technological and 

economic circumstances of the 

individual source. 

NYSDEC RACT Requirements 

The New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

RACT regulations require applicable 

facilities to meet certain requirements, 

referred to as ‘‘presumptive RACT 

requirements.’’ These presumptive 

requirements generally require sources 

to implement emission limits, control 

efficiency requirements, specific control 

technologies, averaging plans, and/or 

fuel/raw material switching practices. In 

some instances, the presumptive RACT 

requirements may not be 

technologically or economically feasible 

for a certain source, and the State can 

make a Source-specific RACT 

determination, which is submitted to 

the EPA as a SSSIP. The SSSIP should 

include the facility’s RACT plan that 

demonstrates how the facility will 

implement RACT. The SSSIP will also 

include the applicable CAA title V 

operating permit conditions that address 

RACT requirements. These permit 

conditions for the Facility will become 

federally enforceable upon the EPA 

approval of the SSSIP. 

Under existing NYSDEC RACT 

regulations, facilities are required to 

assess all technologically feasible 

control options that meet the State’s cost 

threshold. The cost threshold for 

NYSDEC RACT requirements is found 

under NYSDEC 2013 policy, ‘‘DAR–20 

Economic and Technical Analysis for 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT).’’ Under this policy, 

facilities must consider in their RACT 

determinations control technologies that 

remove VOC or NOX emissions up to a 

certain cost threshold, expressed in a 

dollar amount per ton of VOC or NOX

removed, which includes an inflationadjusted economic threshold.3

II. The EPA’s Evaluation of New York’s 

SSSIP Revision and RACT Analysis 

This action relates to a SSSIP revision 

that concerns a paper manufacturer for 

specialty papers, automotive filter, and 

friction papers (the Facility). The 

sources at issue in this action are the 

Facility’s two 10,000-gallon 

underground storage tanks (USTs) used 

to store and supply virgin methanol to 

the solvent saturator process line as part 

of the manufacturing process. NYSDEC 

RACT regulations establish RACT 

requirements for this source in 6 

NYCRR part 212, ‘‘Process Operations,’’ 

subpart 212–3, ‘‘Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for Major 

Facilities,’’ last approved into New 

York’s SIP by the EPA on October 1, 

2021. See 87 FR 54375 (October 1, 

2021). However, as explained above, the 

NYSDEC RACT regulations allow 

Source-specific RACT determinations if 

the presumptive RACT requirements are 

not technologically or economically 

feasible; such Source-specific 

determinations must be submitted to the 

EPA as a SSSIP. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93241 

4Under 6 NYCRR part 212, Definitions (18), 

‘‘Process operation.’’ Any industrial, institutional, 

commercial, agricultural, or other activity, 

operation, manufacture or treatment in which 

chemical, biological and/or physical properties of 

the material or materials are changed, or in which 

the material(s) is conveyed or stored without 

changing the material(s) if the conveyance or 

storage system is equipped with a vent(s) and is 

non-mobile, and that emits air contaminants to the 

outdoor atmosphere. A process operation does not 

include an open fire, operation of a combustion 

installation, or incineration of refuse other than byproducts or wastes from a process operation(s). 

5Found in 6 NYCRR part 212–1.2(b)(18). 

6New York RACT regulation 6 NYCRR subpart 

212–3.1(a)(2) applies because the Facility is located 

outside the listed New York counties and has a 

potential to emit VOC greater than 50 tons per year. 7Since emission point TANK 1 includes two 

USTs and only one UST is filled at a time, the EPA 

estimates 1 hour fill time per tank. See, RACT Plan, 

Section 1.3, Emission Point Description, Section 3. 

Baseline Emissions, and Table C1, Baseline 

Emission Point Parameters Emission Point TANK1. 

8RACT plan, Appendix B, Section 2. Figure 1 

identify the outside of the tanks building where the 

fill port is located. The fill port is how the methanol 

is delivered to the tank. Figure 2 identifies the 

inside of the tanks building and the location of the 

methanol fill line that has a valve. The tanker truck 

operator must go inside the tanks building and 

manually control the valve before directing the 

methanol to either tank 1 or tank 2, one tank at a 

time. Deliveries of methanol are monitored to 

ensure the permitted throughput is not exceeded. 

This SSSIP was submitted to EPA by 

NYSDEC on February 22, 2023, and it 

replaces and withdraws the SSSIP that 

was submitted by the State on 

September 16, 2008. In this SSSIP 

submittal, the EPA has reviewed the 

RACT determination for the USTs for 

consistency with the CAA and the EPA 

regulations, as interpreted through EPA 

actions and guidance. 

The intended effect of this Sourcespecific SIP revision is to establish an 

emission limit for the USTs that are not 

covered by other New York Sourcespecific RACT regulations, and therefore 

must follow 6 NYCRR part 212 as a 

process operation.4 The USTs are 

considered a process operation because 

they: (1) Store and supply virgin 

methanol to the solvent saturator 

process line that is part of the paper 

manufacturing process; (2) store virgin 

methanol without changing the material 

makeup; and (3) are equipped with a 

vent that emits to the outdoor 

atmosphere.5 The tanks therefore meet 

the definition of process operation 

because they are part of a manufacturing 

process in which materials are stored 

without changing the materials, the 

storage system is equipped with a vent 

and is non-mobile, and the tanks emit 

air contaminants to the outdoor 

atmosphere. 

The EPA is proposing to determine 

through this SSSIP action that the VOC 

RACT emission limit submitted by the 

State in this SSSIP for the USTs is the 

lowest emission limit with the 

application of control technology that is 

reasonably available given technological 

and economic feasibility considerations. 

The respective VOC RACT emission 

limit is contained in the Facility’s title 

V operating permit, 6–2218–00017/ 

00009, under Condition 32, emission 

unit 1–TANKS, issued by the State on 

December 27, 2022, and expires on 

December 26, 2027. Condition 32 is 

being incorporated into the SIP and 

includes monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

proposed UST throughput measures 

further described in EPA RACT 

Analysis below and in section IV. 

The Facility submitted a RACT plan, 

dated March 2022, for the emission unit 

and NYSDEC reviewed and approved 

the emission limit as adequately 

implementing RACT for the source. 

NYSDEC then submitted the Sourcespecific SIP revision package at issue in 

this action for EPA approval, and the 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

respective emission limit as 

implementing RACT for this source. 

This would make the emission limit 

federally enforceable. 

EPA RACT Analysis 

The following is a summary of the 

EPA’s analysis of how the proposed 

VOC emission limit implements RACT 

for emission unit 1–TANKS that 

represent two 10,000-gallon USTs. 

The Facility’s two 10,000-gallon USTs 

store and supply virgin methanol to the 

solvent saturator process line. As 

described above, the USTs are 

characterized as a process operation 

under 6 NYCRR part 212, ‘‘Process 

Operations.’’ Since the Facility-wide 

potential to emit (PTE) is greater than 50 

tons of VOC per year, the USTs must 

implement a VOC removal efficiency of 

at least 81 percent when equipped with 

capture system and control device 

found in NYSDEC RACT regulations 

under 6 NYCRR part 212–3.1(c)(4)(i).6

The USTs contribute to the Facility’s 

estimated PTE of 0.126 ton (252 pounds) 

of VOC per year. The filling operation 

of the methanol to the USTs has an 

Emission Rate Potential (ERP) of 3.33 

pounds per hour (252 pounds/year). The 

ERP was calculated by the Facility using 

maximum fill rate of 80 gallons per 

minute and the maximum time for 

filling one tank to be filled at 1 hour.7

When the ERP is greater than 3.00 

pounds per hour, under 6 NYCRR 

subpart 212–3.1(c)(1), the emission 

source must implement RACT. 

Furthermore, pursuant to 6 NYCRR part 

212–3.1(c)(4)(iii), NYSDEC may ‘‘accept 

a lesser degree of control’’ upon 

satisfactorily demonstrating RACT as an 

alternate limit when there is no capture 

system or control device. The Facility 

has no capture system or control devices 

because currently none have been 

identified that are both technically 

feasible and cost effective. As a result, 

a RACT analysis must demonstrate an 

alternate emission limit to comprise 

RACT and a RACT variance can be 

requested pursuant to 6 NYCRR part 

212–3.1(c)(4)(iii). Such a RACT variance 

can be approved if supported by a RACT 

analysis and submitted to the EPA for 

review as a SIP revision. 

The Facility’s RACT analysis 

demonstrates that no VOC control 

technologies are technologically and 

economically feasible other than the 

control of VOC emissions during filling 

operations and monitoring the methanol 

delivery to ensure the operation of the 

USTs are staying below the throughput 

limit in permit Condition 32. As stated 

in permit Condition 32, the Facility 

must continue to investigate VOC RACT 

strategies, including an evaluation of the 

possibility of reformulation, abatement 

technology and/or process modification, 

and submit an updated VOC RACT 

demonstration as part of its title V 

renewal application. Title V permits are 

renewed every 5 years. 

The USTs generate VOC emissions 

during filling operations by vapor 

displacement. Vapor displacement is a 

normal process that occurs during tank 

filling when a volume of vapor-laden air 

(e.g., methanol gases) is displaced that 

is equal to the volume of liquid (e.g., 

methanol) that is added to the tank. 

Vapor displacement occurs so that the 

pressure in the tank is constant. To 

control the amount of VOC emissions 

generated during vapor displacement, a 

throughput limit can be established 

through a permit condition. Throughput 

is the total volume of methanol that is 

loaded to or dispensed from the USTs. 

Methanol delivery from the supplier’s 

tanker truck to the USTs, as well as the 

methanol stored in the USTs that is 

used by the Facility, are controlled by 

limiting the throughput. In addition, the 

two USTs are equipped with one fill 

port to allow only one tank to be filled 

at a time which limits the VOC 

emissions during filling operations.8

NYSDEC reviewed the RACT analysis 

and determined that the alternate 

emission limit implements RACT for the 

USTs. Specifically, NYSDEC approved 

the following case-by-case emission 

limit and requirements: (1) The VOC 

emissions are limited by restricting the 

methanol throughput at the tanks to 

2,500,000 pounds/year with a 12-month 

rolling total; (2) The throughput was 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93242 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

9The RBLC contains case-specific information on 

the best available air pollution technologies that 

have been required to reduce the emission of air 

pollutants from stationary sources. See https://

cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/index.cfm?action=Search

.BasicSearch&lang=en. 

calculated by considering the greatest 

emissions possible based on operational 

needs during tank filling to establish the 

potential to emit at 252 pounds VOC; (3) 

the Facility must maintain monthly 

records to verify the throughput in 

support of a 12-month rolling total; (4) 

any increase in throughput beyond 

2,500,000 pounds/year will require the 

Facility to submit a VOC RACT 

demonstration that addresses RACT 

options at the higher methanol 

throughput rate. 

The EPA is proposing to determine 

that the proposed limit for the USTs 

implements RACT because: (1) The 

RACT analysis demonstrated that no 

additional control technologies beyond 

what are currently used at the USTs are 

technically and economically feasible; 

(2) the EPA review indicates that no 

underground storage tanks in the United 

States store methanol in an 

underground storage tank that has VOC 

add-on controls; (3) any increase in 

throughput beyond 2,500,000 pounds/ 

year will require the Facility to submit 

a VOC RACT demonstration that 

implements RACT at the higher 

methanol throughput rate; and (4) the 

limit adequately restricts the throughput 

of the methanol loaded to, or dispensed 

from, the USTs. 

Further detail on this analysis is 

provided in the TSD available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

Summary of RACT Controls. 

Currently, the Facility limits the VOC 

emissions from the USTs by limiting the 

methanol throughput at 2,500,000 

pounds/year. In its RACT analysis, the 

Facility demonstrated that no costeffective controls were technically 

feasible. We are proposing to determine 

that the following additional technically 

feasible control options do not need to 

be implemented because they are not 

cost effective: (1) Vapor recovery 

system; (2) recuperative thermal 

oxidizer; and (3) connecting incinerator 

piping vents to the USTs. 

In order to determine what VOC 

control technologies could be 

economically and technologically 

feasible for the USTs, the EPA reviewed 

the Reasonably Available Control 

Technology/Best Available Control 

Technology/Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC).9

The EPA’s review of the RBLC reveals 

that no similar UST for methanol 

storage has VOC controls that are 

economically feasible, aside from 

controls that the Facility has already 

implemented. The EPA’s search criteria 

were based on USTs that store methanol 

and not solely on the paper 

manufacturing sector. As such, organic 

liquid Storage and the chemical 

manufacturing sectors, including the 

wood products industry, were included 

in the RBLC search criteria. Based on 

the RBLC, the EPA confirms that no new 

VOC control technologies have become 

available that could be implemented on 

the Facility’s USTs. Further detail on 

RBLC results and cost effectiveness is 

provided in the TSD available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

III. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

The CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require an evaluation of 

environmental justice (EJ) 

considerations and/or concerns, and so 

the State of New York did not evaluate 

EJ concerns as part of its SSSIP 

submittal. The EPA evaluated EJ 

concerns for informational purposes 

only and is providing the following 

details for transparency about this 

rulemaking to the public. The EPA did 

not rely on this information to reach any 

decisions described in this action. The 

EPA created a Community Report 

(Report) using its EJ Screen, Version 2.3. 

The Report is contained in the EPA 

docket assigned to this Federal Register 

document. 

The Report addresses a 1-mile ring 

centered at the Facility. All thirteen EJ 

Screen environmental indexes were 

considered for the Report: (1) Particulate 

matter; (2) ozone; (3) nitrogen dioxide; 

(4) diesel particulate matter; (5) toxic 

releases to air; (6) traffic proximity; (7) 

lead paint; (8) superfund proximity; (9) 

risk management plan (RMP) facility 

proximity; (10) hazardous waste 

proximity; (11) underground storage 

tanks; (12) wastewater discharge; and 

(13) drinking water noncompliance. 

Both the EJ Indexes and the 

Supplemental Indexes were verified 

using the thirteen environmental 

indexes. The difference between the EJ 

and Supplemental indexes is that the EJ 

Indexes combine data on low income 

and people of color populations, 

whereas the Supplemental Indexes 

combine data on percent low-income, 

percent persons with disabilities, 

percent limited English speaking, and 

low life expectancy. We analyze both EJ 

Indexes and Supplemental Indexes 

because they offer different perspectives 

on community level vulnerability based 

on different factors. The EPA uses the 

National percentile for the Report 

results and not the State percentile since 

this SSSIP action is a Federal action. 

The EPA notes that any environmental 

index result that is 80 percentile or 

greater is relatively high compared to 

the United States population. The 

‘‘percentile’’ is what EJ Screen uses to 

compare the area of study to national 

figures. 

The Report results in the following 

National EJ Indexes 80th percentile or 

greater: Drinking water noncompliance 

at 89th percentile. The Report indicates 

the following National Supplemental 

Indexes 80th percentile or greater: 

Nitrogen dioxide at 80th percentile; 

Lead Paint is at 89th percentile; 

underground storage tank at 83rd 

percentile; and drinking water 

noncompliance at 94th percentile. 

The Facility is in a Justice40 

designated disadvantaged community. 

January 2021, President Joe Biden 

issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14008, 

Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 

Abroad. Section 223 of the E.O. 

established the Justice40 Initiative 

which directs 40 percent of certain 

Federal investments to flow to 

disadvantaged communities. 

To understand the indexes that are at 

or higher than 80th percentile, and the 

Justice40 categories that represent 

Watertown, NY, refer to Knowlton EJ 

Screen 80th Percentile and Knowlton EJ 

Screen Community Report Knowlton 

August 26, 2024 in docket assigned to 

this Federal Register document. 

IV. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

current Source-specific SIP revision 

because the limits included in the SSSIP 

are demonstrated to implement RACT 

for emission unit 1–TANKS that 

represent two 10,000-gallon USTs. 

Based on information provided by 

NYSDEC, and a thorough RBLC review 

of similar sources, and an analysis of 

this Source-specific SIP revision, the 

EPA proposes to approve the VOC 

emission limits for emission unit 1– 

TANKS as implementing RACT. 

Specifically, the EPA proposes to 

approve the following limits and 

associated requirements as 

implementing RACT: the Facility must: 

(1) Limit VOC emissions by restricting 

the methanol throughput at the tanks to 

2,500,000 pounds/year with a 12-month 

rolling total; (2) maintain monthly 

records to verify the throughput in 

support of a 12-month rolling total; (3) 

upon any increase in throughput 

beyond 2,500,000 pounds/year, submit a 

VOC RACT demonstration that 

implements RACT at the higher 

methanol throughput rate. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93243 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

proposing to include regulatory text that 

includes incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference revisions to 

Knowlton Technologies LLC title V 

operating permit Condition 32 as 

described in section II. of this preamble. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these materials available 

through www.regulations.gov and at the 

EPA Region II Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 (Public Law 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); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards. 

In addition, the SIP is not proposing 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a 

Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications and it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation did not 

evaluate environmental justice 

considerations as part of its SSSIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

The EPA performed an environmental 

justice analysis, as is described above in 

the section titled, ‘‘Environmental 

Justice Considerations.’’ The analysis 

was done for the purpose of providing 

additional context and information 

about this rulemaking to the public, not 

as a basis of the action. In addition, 

there is no information in the record 

upon which this decision is based 

inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for communities with EJ 

concerns. 

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting, Recordkeeping 

requirements, and Volatile organic 

compound. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Lisa Garcia, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27594 Filed 11–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR PART 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0863; EPA–R03– 

OAR–2023–0179; FRL–12161–01–OAR] 

Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; 

Partial Withdrawals of Findings of 

Failure To Submit State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed action. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

withdraw two final actions finding that 

13 States and/or local air pollution 

control agencies failed to submit State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 

a timely manner to address the EPA’s 

2015 findings of substantial inadequacy 

and ‘‘SIP calls’’ for provisions applying 

to excess emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM). This proposed action would 

render no longer applicable certain CAA 

deadlines for the EPA to impose 

sanctions if a State does not submit a 

complete SIP revision addressing the 

outstanding requirements, and to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP). Concurrently, the EPA is also 

taking direct final action on this 

withdrawal. See the direct final action 

published in the Rules and Regulations 

section of this issue of the Federal 

Register. If we receive no significant 

adverse comment on this proposed 

action, we will not take further action 

on this proposed action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by December 26, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0863 and EPA–R03–OAR– 

2023–0179, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1