[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48532-48536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-12516]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0235; FRL-12018-01-R1]


Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Plan for Inclusion of a Consent 
Order and Removal of State Orders

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) 
to (1) remove State Order 7002B issued to Dow Chemical USA (Dow) in 
Gales Ferry on May 25, 1982 from the Connecticut SIP, (2) remove State 
Order 2087 issued to Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies 
Corporation (Pratt & Whitney) in North Haven on March 22, 1989 from the 
Connecticut SIP, and (3) add Consent Order 8381 issued to Thames 
Shipyard and Repair Company (Thames Shipyard) in New London, CT on 
December 3, 2021, to the Connecticut SIP. State Orders 2087 and 7002B 
addressed reasonably available control technology (RACT) for volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emissions and sulfur fuel content limits for 
Pratt & Whitney and Dow, respectively. Approving the Thames Shipyard 
Order into Connecticut's SIP would ensure RACT requirements with 
respect to VOC emissions from shipbuilding and repair operations 
continue to be implemented at Thames Shipyard. This action is being 
taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 8, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2023-0235 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly 
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov 
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional 
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, 
Boston, MA. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the 
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 
legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Kosin, Physical Scientist, Air 
Quality Branch, Air & Radiation Division (Mail Code 5-MI), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 
100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1175; 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is 
used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Description and Review of Submittals
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On February 8, 1983 (48 FR 5723), EPA approved Connecticut Source-
Specific State Order 7002B into the SIP. State Order 7002B, which 
controls SO2 emissions from combustion equipment by limiting 
fuel sulfur content, was issued to Dow on May 24, 1982. State Order 
7002B is no longer necessary because most of the regulated equipment 
has been removed from the

[[Page 48533]]

property and the remaining equipment is subject to more stringent 
regulatory requirements than those established in the Order. On May 25, 
2016 (81 FR 33134), EPA approved a SIP revision submitted by the State 
of Connecticut on April 22, 2014 (which included supplemental 
submittals submitted on June 18, 2015, and September 25, 2015). The May 
25, 2016, rulemaking established sulfur in fuel oil content limits for 
use in stationary sources. In addition, the rulemaking included a 
revision to the sampling and emission testing methods for sulfur 
content in liquid fuels. A sulfur in fuel limit for use in stationary 
sources was previously 0.5% sulfur by weight as required on or after 
January 1, 2002, but this limit was superseded by the more stringent 
fuel limits (0.3% Sulfur, by weight) required under Sec-19a (e) in the 
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a-174-19a 
(Sec-19a).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ RCSA Section 22a-174-19a (c) required a sulfur in fuel limit 
(0.5% sulfur, by weight) on or after January 1, 2002. The May 25, 
2016, SIP revision removed the requirement at Sec-19a (c) and 
established the more stringent limit at Sec-19a (e). See 81 FR 
33134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State Order 8027, a single-source VOC RACT order, was issued on 
March 22, 1989, to Pratt & Whitney. On May 30, 1989 (54 FR 22890), EPA 
approved Connecticut Source-Specific State Order 8027 into the SIP. 
However, State Order 8027 is no longer necessary to implement RACT 
because the equipment subject to the Order has been removed from the 
property. The Order was rescinded by CT DEEP on November 8, 2016.
    On December 3, 2021, the CT DEEP issued Consent Order 8381 to 
Thames Shipyard. Consent Order 8381 requires source-specific VOC RACT 
to addresses VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
coating operations.
    On May 31, 2022, the CT DEEP proposed to revise the Connecticut SIP 
by removing State Orders 7002B and 8027 and adding Consent Order 8381 
to the Connecticut SIP. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.102, to 
demonstrate satisfaction of federal public participation requirements, 
public notice of this proposed action was published on the CT DEEP 
website on June 6, 2022. Copies of the notice were mailed 
electronically on June 8, 2022, to the directors of the air pollution 
agencies in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, 
along with a copy to the Director of the Air & Radiation Division of 
Region 1 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In accordance 
with the public notice requirements, materials were available for 
review on the CT DEEP website. The public hearing scheduled for July 7, 
2022, was cancelled because no one requested a hearing by the July 6, 
2022, deadline. In accordance with the notice, the comment period was 
open through July 5, 2022. No comments were received. On July 19, 2022, 
the CT DEEP submitted the proposed SIP revision to EPA.
    On February 14, 2024, CT DEEP submitted a partial revision to its 
July 2022 SIP submission by removing the last clause of the last 
sentence of paragraph B.21 from Consent Order 8381 from consideration 
as a SIP measure. CT DEEP removed the last clause of the notification 
of noncompliance which states, ``unless specifically so stated by the 
Commissioner in writing.''

II. Description and Review of Submittals

State Order #7002B Issued to Dow

    CT DEEP issued State Order #7002B to Dow on May 24, 1982, to limit 
sulfur dioxide emissions from fuel burning sources located at the 
facility in Gales Ferry. The Order limited the sulfur content of fuel 
combusted in the units to 1% by weight. The Order also prohibited the 
concurrent operation of the Wickes boilers (E7C and E7D). During an 
inspection conducted by CT DEEP on April 20, 2022, it was determined 
that Heat Transfer Media Heater EA and EB, Cyclotherm Boilers E7A and 
E7B, and Wickes Boilers E7C and E7D had all been decommissioned and 
removed from the premises. Dowtherm Heater A and Dowtherm Heater B 
remain onsite and are owned and operated by Americas Styrenics, LLC. 
The Dowtherm heaters are identified as EU-1 and EU-2 in Americas 
Styrenics, LLC's Title V permit (Permit #092-0027-TV).
    On May 25, 2016 (81 FR 33134), EPA approved a SIP revision 
submitted by the State of Connecticut on April 22, 2014 (which included 
supplemental submittals submitted on June 18, 2015, and September 25, 
2015). This revision established a more stringent sulfur in fuel oil 
content limit of 0.3% sulfur by weight for use in stationary sources 
(RCSA Sec-19a (e)), which superseded the previous limit of 0.5% sulfur 
by weight under RCSA Sec-19a (c). The revision also incorporated new 
provisions under RCSA section 22a-174-19b (Sec-19b) ``Fuel Sulfur 
content Limitations for Stationary Sources'' that limited the fuel 
sulfur content of distillate oil to 0.0015% by weight and residual oil 
to 0.3% by weight. Therefore, these regulations contained more 
stringent limits than the limit specified in State Order 7002B. In 
addition, the submittal included a more recent version of the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method D4294 and 
automatic sampling equipment conformance to ASTM test method D4177-82 
for sulfur content in liquid fuels. On April 28, 2022, the Connecticut 
DEEP's Enforcement Division of the Bureau of Air Management reviewed 
the information regarding State Order Number 7002B and determined that 
the Order was obsolete. Order 7002B was determined no longer necessary 
because most of the subject equipment had been removed from the 
property and the remaining equipment was subject to more stringent 
regulatory requirements than those established in the Order. 
Accordingly, the Connecticut DEEP rescinded the Order on April 28, 
2022.

State Order 8027 Issued to Pratt & Whitney

    State Order 8027, a single-source VOC RACT Order, was issued by CT 
DEEP on March 22, 1989, to Pratt & Whitney with requirements for the 
use of vapor degreasers and solvent cleaning at its facility in North 
Haven. During an inspection conducted on October 6, 1995, CT DEEP 
determined that there was no vapor or conveyorized degreasers in 
service at the facility. Subsequently, Pratt & Whitney sold the 
property on December 31, 2001, and ceased all operations at the 
facility on December 31, 2002. During an inspection conducted on June 
6, 2012, the CT DEEP confirmed that the site appeared to be abandoned 
because the building and parking lot were in disrepair, the landscaping 
was overgrown, and the entrance was gated and padlocked. Accordingly, 
State Order 8027 is no longer necessary because the subject equipment 
has been removed from the property, and the Order was rescinded by CT 
DEEP on October 8, 2016.

Consent Order No. 8381 Issued to Thames Shipyard

    Thames Shipyard conducts ship building and repair operations at its 
facility in New London. Thames Shipyard is classified as a major source 
of HAP for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Surface Coating National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, at 40 CFR 63 Subpart 
II (``Shipbuilding NESHAP'') and is subject to the emission control 
requirements promulgated in the Shipbuilding NESHAP. However, Thames 
Shipyard can accept an enforceable limit on its potential to emit

[[Page 48534]]

and apply to the state regulatory authority to be reclassified from a 
NESHAP major source to an area source.2 3 If Thames Shipyard 
is reclassified as an area source of HAP, it must satisfy the 
requirements of Connecticut's RACT rule for the miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts coating source category at Section 22a-174-20(s). 
Therefore, Thames Shipyard requested the VOC content limits set forth 
in the Shipbuilding NESHAP to be issued as a state-issued consent order 
for incorporation into the SIP. In response to this request, CT DEEP 
issued Consent Order 8381 on December 3, 2021, which ensures that the 
VOC emissions from shipbuilding and repair operations at Thames 
Shipyard continue to be no less stringent than the NESHAP requirements 
and consistent with the EPA Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for 
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating) published 
August 27, 1996 (61 FR 44050).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See EPA's November 19, 2020 final rulemaking titled 
``Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 
112 of the Clean Air Act''. 85 FR 73854.
    \3\ Thames Shipyard has accepted federally enforceable permit 
limits to its facility-wide potential-to-emit to below major source 
thresholds. See CT DEEP NSR Permit Nos. 128-0062 and 128-0063 in the 
administrative docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 14, 2024, CT revised its SIP submission to remove the 
last clause of the last sentence of paragraph B.21 of Consent Order 
8381 from consideration as a SIP measure. Specifically, CT DEEP removed 
the last clause of the notification of noncompliance which states, 
``unless specifically so stated by the Commissioner in writing.'' This 
phrase was removed because SIP-approved requirements cannot be open-
ended and later arbitrarily established or waived by the state.
    The information provided by Thames Shipyard indicated that the 
identified shipbuilding coatings are necessary to protect ships from 
corrosion. As shown in Table 1 below, the VOC content limit for each 
coating category in Consent Order 8381 is no greater than the analogous 
limit in the Shipbuilding NESHAP and CTG. Consent Order 8381 also 
grants the use of the thinning formula prescribed in the Shipbuilding 
NESHAP in lieu of the formula found in Section 22a-174-20(s)(9)(A) of 
the RCSA. According to Thames Shipyard, the thinner formula prescribed 
in Section 22a174-20(s) of the RCSA fails to address the use of the 
thinner outdoors under cold conditions. Because the formula prescribed 
in the Shipbuilding NESHAP (Equation 1 in 40 CFR 63.785(c)(2)) 
considers the solids content of the batch, this formula is more 
appropriate for Thames Shipyard than the formula prescribed in Section 
22a-174-20(s)(9)(A) of the RCSA when determining the maximum allowable 
thinning ratio or ratios to be applied at the facility, as the facility 
repairs ships year-round and outdoors. Because this calculation method 
is based upon the methodology at 40 CFR 63.785, this provision would 
achieve no less than the level of VOC emission control as provided for 
in the Shipbuilding NESHAP.
    The VOC content limits for each coating category is no greater than 
the analogous limit in the Shipbuilding NESHAP and CTG. Table 1 below 
summarizes the comparison between the VOC content limits for the 
Shipbuilding NESHAP and CTG in each coating category. As demonstrated 
in Table 1 below, the requirements in Consent Order 8381 with respect 
to VOC limits are consistent with the limits in the Shipbuilding NESHAP 
and CTG, and achieve the same or a more stringent level of emission 
control as the Shipbuilding NESHAP and CTG.

 Table 1--Comparison of Shipbuilding NESHAP Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content Limits and the Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) VOC Content Limits
                                       With Respect to the VOC Content Limits for Thames Shipyard & Repair Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              RACT Order 8381 for Thames
                                                                     Shipbuilding NESHAP VOC     Shipbuilding & repair CTG    Shipyard & Repair Company
                         Coating category                          content limits (grams/liter   VOC content limits (grams/   VOC content limits (grams/
                                                                           of coating)               liter of coating)            liter of coating)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Use inventory............................................                          340                          340                          340
High-Gloss.......................................................                          420                          420                          420
Antifoulant......................................................                          400                          400                          400
Nonskid..........................................................                          340                          340                          340
Organic Zinc.....................................................                          360                          360                          360
Pretreatment Wash Primer.........................................                          780                          780                          780
High-Temperature.................................................                          500                          500                          500
Heat Resistant...................................................                          420                          420                          420
Inorganic Zinc High-Build........................................                          360                          340                          340
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further analyze whether Consent Order No. 8381 issued to Thames 
Shipyard adequately implements RACT, EPA reviewed multiple potential 
VOC control requirements that might apply to shipbuilding and repair 
operations, which were drawn from EPA's own guidance and regulations, 
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rules and guidelines,\4\ and 
neighboring states' regulatory requirements. EPA's relevant CTG and 
NESHAP requirements have not changed since August 27,1996 (61 FR-44050) 
and November 21, 2011 (76 FR 72050), and were evaluated against other 
regulations to ensure Consent Order 8381 adequately implements RACT. 
EPA was unable to identify any OTC model rules or guidelines for 
implementing RACT with respect to VOC emissions for this category of 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Ozone Transport Commission. Model Rules and Guidelines. 
Retrieved January 3, 2024, https://otcair.org/materials/model-rules-and-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to neighboring states' requirements, Massachusetts has 
source-specific requirements for Boston Ship Repair, LLC, that are in 
accordance with the NESHAP for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair in 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart II. Rhode Island issued a single source RACT order for 
US Watercraft, LLC in Warren, Rhode Island, which was approved as 
implementing RACT for VOC emissions by EPA on September 21, 2017 (82 FR 
44103). Massachusetts and Rhode Island requirements very closely mimic 
the EPA CTG and NESHAP requirements and collectively contain as many as 
twenty-two specialty coating categories with VOC content

[[Page 48535]]

limits ranging from 340 to 780 grams of VOC per liter of coating, as 
well as a general use limit of 340 grams of VOC per liter of coating. 
To compare, the Connecticut Order for Thames Shipyard contains eight 
specialty coating categories with VOC content limits ranging from 340 
to 780 grams of VOC per liter of coating and a general use VOC limit of 
340 grams of VOC per liter of coating.
    New York added Title 6 NYCRR Part 228 to its SIP on January 23, 
2004 (69 FR 3237) and re-certified that state regulation as 
implementing RACT with respect to VOC emissions on November 9, 2023 (88 
FR 77208). New York's requirements are different in character in that 
they primarily pertain to ``pleasure craft'' which are smaller, non-
commercial, recreational type vessels, whereas the EPA CTG and NESHAP 
shipbuilding and repair operations address larger ships, barges, and 
other vessels for military and commercial use. Since New York's 
regulation focuses on pleasure craft, it lacks some of the specialty 
coating requirements for shipbuilding repair. The New York regulation 
contains seven specialty coating categories with VOC content limits 
ranging from 330 to 780 grams of VOC per liter of coating and a general 
use category VOC content limit of 420 grams of VOC per liter of 
coating. Finally, New Jersey made a negative declaration for the 
shipbuilding and ship repair CTG category on October 9, 2018 (83 FR 
50506), which indicates they have no relevant operations. Therefore, a 
review of CT's limits as compared to neighboring states with similar 
regulations indicates that CT's limits are the same or more stringent 
than the limits prescribed by neighboring states, including 
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
    EPA has reviewed the CT DEEP SIP submittal with respect to Consent 
Order No. 8381 issued to Thames Shipyard and proposes to determine that 
the VOC stationary source controls requirements in the Consent Order 
implement RACT and we are therefore proposing to approve the addition 
of Consent Order into the CT SIP.

Clean Air Act Subsection 110(l) and Section 193 Compliance

    Subsection 110(l) of the CAA is referred to as the ``anti-
backsliding'' provision because the subsection prohibits EPA from 
approving a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any 
applicable requirement in the chapter, including reasonable further 
progress and attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. 
Similarly, section 193 of the CAA prohibits EPA from modifying control 
requirements in effect before November 15, 1990, unless the 
modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions. EPA is 
proposing to determine that CAA sections 110(l) and 193 are not 
implicated by this action because the Orders proposed to be removed 
from the CT SIP no longer control sources of VOC or SO2 
emissions, and the Order we are proposing to add to the CT SIP would 
ensure equivalent or greater emission reductions when compared to the 
current CT SIP.
    As explained above, the Dow units subject to State Order #7002B 
were decommissioned and removed, and the low-sulfur fuel oil 
requirements that now apply to the other units still present at the 
facility are currently required by a statewide regulation, which was 
approved into the CT SIP on May 25, 2016 (81 FR 33134). Also as 
explained above, the Pratt & Whitney vapor degreasers and solvent 
cleaning equipment described in State Order 8027 have been removed from 
the property, and Pratt & Whitney sold the property on December 31, 
2001, and ceased all operations at the facility on December 31, 2002. 
With regard to adding Consent Order 8381 issued to the Thames Shipyard 
to the SIP, as explained above, the requirements in Consent Order 8381 
implement RACT for VOC emissions and achieve no less VOC control as 
compared to the existing NESHAP regulations currently applicable to the 
facility. Therefore, EPA proposes that the SIP revision complies with 
subsection 110(l) and section 193 of the CAA because the revision 
ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions when compared to the 
current CT SIP and the equipment subject to State Order #7002B and 8027 
has been decommissioned and is no longer in use.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the CT DEEP's request to revise the 
Connecticut SIP to (1) remove State Order 7002B issued to Dow Chemical 
USA in Gales Ferry on May 25, 1982 from the Connecticut SIP, (2) remove 
State Order issued to Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies 
Corporation in North Haven on March 22, 1989 from the Connecticut SIP, 
and (3) add Consent Order 8381issued to Thames Shipyard and Repair 
Company in New London on December 3, 2021, to the Connecticut SIP, with 
the exception of the language that was removed from the proposed SIP 
revision on February 14, 2024 as described above.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
notice and other relevant considerations. These comments will be 
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in 
the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference RACT Order Consent Order 8381, dated December 3, 2021, which 
establishes VOC RACT requirements for Thames Shipyard and Repair 
Company. In this rule, the EPA is proposing to remove a single-source 
VOC RACT Order 2087 issued to Pratt & Whitney Division of United 
Technologies Corporation, in North Haven, Connecticut, which was 
approved by EPA into the SIP on May 30, 1989 (54 FR 22890) and State 
Order 7002B, issued to Dow Chemical USA, in Gales Ferry, Connecticut, 
which was approved by EPA into the SIP on February 8, 1983 (48 FR 5723) 
because the regulated activities have ceased operation and no longer 
exist. The proposed changes are described in sections I. and II. of 
this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and 
at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58 
FR 51735,

[[Page 48536]]

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act.
     In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any 
Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian 
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that 
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The CT DEEP did not evaluate environmental justice considerations 
as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing 
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did 
not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due 
to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected 
to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected 
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and 
there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal 
of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, 
low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: June 3, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2024-12516 Filed 6-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P