Quiero saber acerca de...

9858

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

technological and economic feasibility considerations associated with operating the Sayreville EAF i.e., RACT
for the Sayreville EAF. The Facility is allowed to continue to operate under its current approved emission limits of 57
pounds per hour lb/hr of VOC and 31
lb/hr of NOX for the Sayreville EAF, because its request to be covered under alternative control plans for VOC
pursuant to NJAC 7:27 Subchapter 16
and for NOX pursuant to NJAC 7:27
Subchapter 19 met the States deadlines and statutory criteria for approval. A
full summary of EPAs findings for this source-specific SIP revision is included in the technical support document that is contained in EPAs docket assigned to this Federal Register document.
II. The EPAs Evaluation of New Jerseys Submittals The EPAs approval is based on the conclusion that the States April 30, 2019 SIP revision to authorizing the Facility to continue to operate under existing VOC and NOX emission limits for the Sayreville EAF operated by CMC
Steel New Jersey conforms with the States regulations under NJAC 7:27
16.17 and NJAC 7:2719.13. After reviewing CMC Steel New Jerseys updated facility-specific VOC and NOX
control plans, which were submitted to NJDEP, that are the subject of this source-specific SIP revision, the EPA
makes the following determination:
1 The Facility qualifies to continue to operate under the current NJDEPapproved emission limits for VOC and NOX. Under NJAC: 7:2716.17c3, facilities that sought to continue operating with an alternative VOC
control plan that was approved prior to May 19, 2009, were required to submit updated proposed VOC control plans to NJDEP for review by August 17, 2009.
Similarly, under NJAC: 7:2719.13a3, facilities that sought to continue to operate under existing facility-specific NOX control plans that were approved prior to May 1, 2005, were required to submit updated proposed NOX control plans to NJDEP for review by August 17, 2009. The Facility met both deadlines with the submission of its VOC and NOX control plans, respectively.
2 The Facilitys Operating Permit, issued pursuant to Title V of the Clean Air Act CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661a, describes a facility-specific VOC
emission limit of 57 lb/hr and a facilityspecific maximum allowable NOX
emission limit of 31 lb/hr, both of which are consistent with the updated VOC
and NOX control plans that are the subject of this SIP revision.
3 The EPAs consultation with air pollution control experts from NJDEP

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Feb 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

and EPA confirms the Facilitys RACT
analysis conclusion that no comparable electric arc furnace emission control technologies are deployed at other facilities nationwide. For a detailed explanation and evaluation of the SIP
revision, refer to the proposed rulemaking. See 85 FR 42803, July 15, 2020.
III. What comments were received in response to the EPAs proposed action?
The EPA received no public comments in response to the July 15, 2020 proposed rulemaking. Therefore, the EPA approves this SIP revision with no further changes.
IV. Summary of the EPAs Final Action The EPA approves the State of New Jerseys SIP revision dated April 30, 2019, which includes a source-specific SIP for CMC Steel New Jersey, located at 1 N Crossman, Sayreville, New Jersey.
The control options in this sourcespecific SIP address the State of New Jerseys RACT requirements included in NJAC 7:2716, Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds and New Jersey NJAC
7:2719, Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen, both effective January 16, 2018. The EPA makes the following findings: 1
The Facility met NJDEPs statutory criteria and deadlines to qualify for continuing to operate under existing VOC and NOX emission limits; 2 the Facility meets emission limits set by NJDEP for VOC emission rate at 57 lb/
hr and for NOX emission rate at 31 lb/
hr; and 3 the Facility implements RACT controls for VOC and NOXfor VOC, through execution of the Scrap Management Plan and operating a direct evacuation system and for NOX, through application of good operating practices that maintain a constant temperature in the preheater chamber and minimizes electricity consumption to avoid indirect NOX emissions. The Facility has demonstrated that it meets all applicable requirements of the CAA and it will not interfere with any applicable requirements pertaining to attainment of the NAAQS and reasonable further progress or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
V. Incorporation by Reference In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the provisions described above in Section IV. Summary of the EPAs Final Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 2 Office please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information.
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPAs approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1
VI. 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. 42 U.S.C. 7410k;
40 CFR 52.02a. Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPAs role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 final action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 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 Pub. L. 1044;
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 12d of the National 1 62

E:FRFM17FER1.SGM

FR 27968 May 22, 1997.

17FER1