Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas; Control of Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 59376-59379 [2022-21245]

Download as PDF 59376 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, in light of Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014), this proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, will apply to non-reservation Indian allotments within the state and, therefore, has tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175. This action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments because no actions will be required of tribal governments. This action will also not preempt tribal law as no tribe in New Mexico implements a Tribal Implementation Program under the CAA. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011), EPA has offered consultation to tribal governments that may be affected by this action. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: September 26, 2022. Earthea Nance, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 2022–21246 Filed 9–29–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA–R06–OAR–2022–0546; FRL–10189– 01–R6] Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas; Control of Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the CAA section 111(d) state plan submitted by the State SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Sep 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 of Arkansas for sources subject to the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills Emission Guidelines (EG). The Arkansas MSW landfills plan was submitted to fulfill the state’s obligations under CAA section 111(d) to implement and enforce the requirements under the MSW Landfills EG. The EPA is proposing to approve the state plan and amend the agency regulations in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 31, 2022. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– OAR–2022–0546, at https:// www.regulations.gov or via email to ruan-lei.karolina@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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 Karolina Ruan Lei, (214) 665– 7346, ruan-lei.karolina@epa.gov. 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. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karolina Ruan Lei, EPA Region 6 Office, Air and Radiation Division—State Planning and Implementation Branch, (214) 665–7346, ruan-lei.karolina@ epa.gov. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID–19. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there will be a delay in processing mail and no courier or hand deliveries will be PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 accepted. Please call or email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the docket. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the EPA. I. Background Section 111 of the CAA, ‘‘Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,’’ directs the EPA to establish emission standards for stationary sources of air pollution that could potentially endanger public health or welfare. These standards are referred to as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Section 111(d) addresses the process by which the EPA and states regulate standards of performance for existing sources. When NSPS are promulgated for new sources, section 111(d) and EPA regulations require that the EPA publish an Emission Guideline (EG) to regulate the same pollutants from existing facilities. While NSPS are directly applicable to new sources, EG for existing sources (designated facilities) are intended for states to use to develop a state plan to submit to the EPA. State plan submittal and revisions under CAA section 111(d) must be consistent with the applicable EG and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and part 62, subpart A. The regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, contain general provisions applicable to the adoption and submittal of state plans under CAA section 111(d). Additionally, 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, provides the procedural framework by which the EPA will approve or disapprove such plans submitted by a state. Once approved by the EPA, the state plan becomes federally enforceable. If a state does not submit an approvable state plan to the EPA, the EPA is responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing a federal plan. The MSW landfills NSPS for new landfills and EG for existing landfills were first promulgated by EPA on March 12, 1996, in 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc, respectively (61 FR 9905). On August 29, 2016, the EPA finalized revisions to the MSW landfills NSPS and EG in 40 CFR part 60, subparts XXX and Cf, respectively (81 FR 59332; 81 FR 59313). The 2016 EG revision updates the control requirements and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions for existing MSW landfill sources. The current MSW landfills EG, found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, concerns the regulation of landfill gas and its E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS components, including methane, from MSW landfills for which construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced on or before July 17, 2014. The deadline to submit a state plan to the EPA was May 30, 2017. On May 21, 2021, EPA finalized the MSW landfills federal plan in 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO (86 FR 27756). The MSW landfills federal plan at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO, applies to states that do not have an EPA-approved state plan. The MSW landfills federal plan is currently in effect in Arkansas. In order to fulfill obligations under CAA section 111(d), the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a state plan for the control of emissions from existing MSW landfills for the State of Arkansas on June 20, 2022, and supplemented its submittal on August 24, 2022, and August 31, 2022.1 The Arkansas MSW landfills plan implements and enforces the applicable provisions under the MSW landfills EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and additionally meets the relevant requirements of the CAA section 111(d) implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The Arkansas submittal and the supplements are included in the public docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2022–0546). II. Evaluation The EPA has evaluated the Arkansas MSW landfills plan to determine whether the plan meets applicable requirements from the MSW landfills EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and the CAA section 111(d) implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The EPA’s detailed rationale and discussion on the Arkansas MSW landfills plan can be found in the EPA Technical Support Document (TSD), located in the docket for this rulemaking. The Arkansas state plan submittal package includes all materials necessary to be deemed administratively and technically complete according to the criteria of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The state plan document (the ‘‘Arkansas State Plan for 111(d) Designated Facilities’’) includes all the necessary authority for the implementation and enforcement of the MSW landfill Emission Guidelines in the State. Specifically, the State appropriately incorporated all applicable EG requirements from 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, into the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission 1 The Arkansas plan submitted by ADEQ does not cover sources located in Indian country. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Sep 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 (APC&EC) Rule 19, Chapter 17. Both the adopted state plan document and the relevant APC&EC regulations, as well as all other relevant plan submittal materials may be found in the docket for this action. Necessary State legal and enforcement authorities required for plan approval are located elsewhere in Arkansas’s statute, rules and regulations and have been reviewed and approved of by the EPA in the course of prior state implementation plan as well as section 111(d) and/or 129 state plan approvals. See 40 CFR part 52, subpart E, and 40 CFR part 62, subpart E. The Arkansas MSW landfills plan has been evaluated in detail in the TSD. Our evaluation demonstrates that the Arkansas MSW landfills plan meets the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf and subpart B, and is consistent with the requirements for an approvable section 111(d) state plans for MSW landfills. III. Proposed Action The EPA is proposing to approve the Arkansas MSW landfill plan submitted by ADEQ in accordance with the requirements of section 111(d) of the CAA and to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart E, to codify EPA’s approval. The EPA is proposing to find that the Arkansas MSW landfill plan is at least as protective as the Federal requirements provided under the MSW landfills EG, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. Once approved by the EPA, the Arkansas MSW landfills plan will become federally enforceable. IV. Environmental Justice Considerations 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 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 59377 commercial operations or programs and policies.’’ 2 EPA is providing additional analysis of environmental justice associated with this action. We are doing so for the purpose of providing information to the public, not as a basis of our proposed action. EPA conducted screening analyses using EJSCREEN, an environmental justice mapping and screening tool that provides EPA with a nationally consistent dataset and approach for combining various environmental and demographic indicators.3 The EJSCREEN tool presents these indicators at a Census block group (CBG) level or a larger user-specified ‘‘buffer’’ area that covers multiple CBGs.4 An individual CBG is a cluster of contiguous blocks within the same census tract and generally contains between 600 and 3,000 people. EJSCREEN is not a tool for performing in-depth risk analysis, but is instead a screening tool that provides an initial representation of indicators related to environmental justice and is subject to uncertainty in some underlying data (e.g., some environmental indicators are based on monitoring data which are not uniformly available; others are based on self-reported data).5 To help mitigate this uncertainty, we have summarized EJSCREEN data within larger ‘‘buffer’’ areas covering multiple block groups and representing the average resident within the buffer areas surrounding the MSW landfills. We present EJSCREEN environmental indicators to help screen for locations where residents may experience a higher overall pollution burden than would be expected for a block group with the same total population. These indicators of overall pollution burden include estimates of ambient particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone concentration, a score for traffic proximity and volume, percentage of pre-1960 housing units (lead paint indicator), and scores for proximity to Superfund sites, risk management plan 2 See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ learn-about-environmental-justice. 3 The EJSCREEN tool is available at https:// www.epa.gov/ejscreen. 4 See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ geography/about/glossary.html. 5 In addition, EJSCREEN relies on the five-year block group estimates from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. The advantage of using five-year over single-year estimates is increased statistical reliability of the data (i.e., lower sampling error), particularly for small geographic areas and population groups. For more information, see https://www.census.gov/content/ dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_ general_handbook_2020.pdf. E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1 59378 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules (RMP) sites, and hazardous waste facilities.6 EJSCREEN also provides information on demographic indicators, including percent low-income, communities of color, linguistic isolation, and less than high school education. The EPA prepared EJSCREEN reports covering buffer areas of approximately 3-mile radii around the existing MSW landfills in Arkansas. Table 1 presents a summary of results from the EPA’s screening-level analysis for the areas surrounding each MSW landfill compared to the U.S. as a whole, where the landfill was located in an area where one or more of the EJ indices were greater than the 80th percentiles (the full, detailed EJSCREEN reports are provided in the docket for this rulemaking). TABLE 1—EJSCREEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING ARKANSAS MSW LANDFILLS WITH EJ INDICES ABOVE 80%TILE Values for buffer areas (radius) for each MSW landfill and the U.S. (percentile within U.S. where indicated) Variables Pollution Burden Indicators: Particulate matter (PM2.5), annual average. Ozone, summer seasonal average of daily 8hour max. Traffic proximity and volume score*. Lead paint (percentage pre1960 housing). Superfund proximity score *. RMP proximity score *. Hazardous waste proximity score *. Demographic Indicators: People of color population. Low-income population. Linguistically isolated population. Population with less than high school education. Population under 5 years of age. Population over 64 years of age. Little Rock Municipal Landfill (Pulaski, 3 miles) ModelFill Landfill (Pulaski, 3 miles) Fulton Landfill— Cloverdale (Benton, 3 miles) City of West Helena Landfill (Phillips, 3 miles) U.S. 9.79 μg/m3 (80th %ile). 9.9 μg/m3 (82nd %ile) 9.39 μg/m3 (72nd %ile). 8.68 μg/m3 (52nd %ile). 8.74 μg/m3 (—) 41.4 ppb (40th %ile) 41.6 ppb (43rd %ile) 43.1 ppb (58th %ile) 40.4 ppb (34th %ile) 42.6 ppb (—) 120 (37th %ile) ......... 650 (74th %ile) ......... 210 (48th %ile) ......... 110 (35th %ile) ......... 710 (—) 0.11% (41st %ile) ..... 0.39% (71st %ile) ..... 0.1% (40th %ile) ....... 0.26% (60th %ile) ..... 0.28% (—) 0.033 (29th %ile) ...... 0.039 (34th %ile) ...... 0.018 (15th %ile) ...... 0.27 (90th %ile) ........ 0.13 (—) 1.1 (78th %ile) .......... 2.7 (94th %ile) .......... 1.5 (85th %ile) .......... 0.37 (53rd %ile) ........ 0.75 (—) 1.9 (70th %ile) .......... 2 (70th %ile) ............. 0.7 (49th %ile) .......... 1.4 (64th %ile) .......... 2.2 (—) 74% (79th %ile) ........ 77% (81st %ile) ........ 31% (49th %ile) ........ 73% (79th %ile) ........ 40% (—) 56% (86th %ile) ........ 53% (83rd %ile) ........ 39% (67th %ile) ........ 63% (90th %ile) ........ 31% (—) 4% (69th %ile) .......... 4% (66th %ile) .......... 6% (76th %ile) .......... 0% (45th %ile) .......... 5% (—) 22% (82nd %ile) ....... 15% (69th %ile) ........ 20% (79th %ile) ........ 19% (77th %ile) ........ 12% (—) 10% (87th %ile) ........ 7% (60th %ile) .......... 5% (44th %ile) .......... 8% (77th %ile) .......... 6% 10% (30th %ile) ........ 12% (40th %ile) ........ 14% (49th %ile) ........ 19% (69th %ile) ........ 16% (—) jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS * The traffic proximity and volume indicator is a score calculated by daily traffic count divided by distance in meters to the road. The Superfund proximity, RMP proximity, and hazardous waste proximity indicators are all scores calculated by site or facility counts divided by distance in kilometers. This proposed rule is proposing to approve Arkansas’s MSW Landfills Plan, received on June 20, 2022, in accordance with section 111(d) of the CAA. The Arkansas MSW Landfills Plan incorporates federal requirements for MSW landfills, as specified in the MSW landfills EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, which are also implemented under the MSW Landfills Federal Plan at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO. The MSW Landfills Federal Plan was implemented by EPA in Arkansas as Arkansas did not have an approved MSW landfills plan addressing applicable EG requirements. These EG requirements implemented under the MSW Landfills Federal Plan and now incorporated by Arkansas in its MSW landfills plan is designed to result in significant emissions reductions for MSW landfills, as described in the Federal Registers for the MSW landfill rules (80 FR 52100; 81 FR 59276). Landfill gas is a natural byproduct of the decomposition of organic material in landfills and is composed of roughly 50% methane, 50% carbon dioxide (CO2), and less than 1% non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) by volume, which include volatile organic 6 For additional information on environmental indicators and proximity scores in EJSCREEN, see ‘‘EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Mapping and Screening Tool: EJSCREEN Technical Documentation,’’ Chapter 3 and Appendix C (September 2019) at https://www.epa.gov/sites/ default/files/2021-04/documents/ejscreen_ technical_document.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Sep 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules compounds (VOC) and various organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP).7 VOC emissions are precursors to both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone formation; exposure to PM2.5 and ozone is associated with significant public health effects, including (1) cardiovascular morbidity such as heart attacks, (2) respiratory morbidity such as asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, (3) hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and (4) premature mortality.8 Hazardous air pollutants may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects.9 In addition, methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 28–36 times greater than CO2. Therefore, we believe that these requirements for existing MSW landfills and resulting emissions reductions have climate benefits and have contributed to reduced environmental and health impacts on all populations impacted by emissions from these sources in Arkansas, including people of color and lowincome populations, and will continue to do so under Federal oversight. This proposed rule is not anticipated to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns because it is not anticipated to result in or contribute to emissions increases in Arkansas. If finalized as proposed, EPA’s approval of the Arkansas MSW Landfills Plan will make the Plan and the corresponding MSW landfills EG requirements incorporated into the Plan federally enforceable by EPA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA section 111(d) submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Thus, in reviewing CAA section 111(d) state plan submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act and implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements 7 See 80 FR 52099, August 27, 2015. 8 Id. 9 See https://www.epa.gov/air-qualitymanagement-process/managing-air-quality-humanhealth-environmental-and-economic#what. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Sep 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 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); • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This proposed rule also does not have Tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 59379 Dated: September 26, 2022. Earthea Nance, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 2022–21245 Filed 9–29–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 4 [PS Docket No. 21–346; PS Docket No. 15– 80; ET Docket No. 04–35; FCC 22–50; FR ID 103460] Disruptions to Communications Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: In a final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register (final rule), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopts a new ‘‘Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative’’ (MDRI). The final rule requires providers to file reports with the Commission following the MDRI’s activation, including testing of their roaming capabilities and reporting on the performance of their implementation of the MDRI to the Commission after the events. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission seeks comment on whether reports submitted under the final rule would benefit from standardization, and what that should entail. SUMMARY: Comments are due on or before October 31, 2022 and reply comments are due on or before November 29, 2022. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 21–346; PS Docket No. 15–80; and ET Docket No. 04–35, by any of the following methods: • Federal Communications Commission’s Website: https:// www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 DATES: E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59376-59379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21245]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0546; FRL-10189-01-R6]


Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for 
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas; Control of Emissions 
From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the CAA 
section 111(d) state plan submitted by the State of Arkansas for 
sources subject to the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills Emission 
Guidelines (EG). The Arkansas MSW landfills plan was submitted to 
fulfill the state's obligations under CAA section 111(d) to implement 
and enforce the requirements under the MSW Landfills EG. The EPA is 
proposing to approve the state plan and amend the agency regulations in 
accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2022-0546, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. 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 Karolina Ruan Lei, (214) 
665-7346, [email protected]. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the 
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly 
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karolina Ruan Lei, EPA Region 6 
Office, Air and Radiation Division--State Planning and Implementation 
Branch, (214) 665-7346, [email protected]. Out of an abundance 
of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Region 6 
office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk of transmitting 
COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there will be a delay in processing mail and no 
courier or hand deliveries will be accepted. Please call or email the 
contact listed above if you need alternative access to material indexed 
but not provided in the docket.

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

I. Background

    Section 111 of the CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New 
Stationary Sources,'' directs the EPA to establish emission standards 
for stationary sources of air pollution that could potentially endanger 
public health or welfare. These standards are referred to as New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS). Section 111(d) addresses the process by 
which the EPA and states regulate standards of performance for existing 
sources. When NSPS are promulgated for new sources, section 111(d) and 
EPA regulations require that the EPA publish an Emission Guideline (EG) 
to regulate the same pollutants from existing facilities. While NSPS 
are directly applicable to new sources, EG for existing sources 
(designated facilities) are intended for states to use to develop a 
state plan to submit to the EPA.
    State plan submittal and revisions under CAA section 111(d) must be 
consistent with the applicable EG and the requirements of 40 CFR part 
60, subpart B, and part 62, subpart A. The regulations at 40 CFR part 
60, subpart B, contain general provisions applicable to the adoption 
and submittal of state plans under CAA section 111(d). Additionally, 40 
CFR part 62, subpart A, provides the procedural framework by which the 
EPA will approve or disapprove such plans submitted by a state. Once 
approved by the EPA, the state plan becomes federally enforceable. If a 
state does not submit an approvable state plan to the EPA, the EPA is 
responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing a federal plan.
    The MSW landfills NSPS for new landfills and EG for existing 
landfills were first promulgated by EPA on March 12, 1996, in 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts WWW and Cc, respectively (61 FR 9905). On August 29, 
2016, the EPA finalized revisions to the MSW landfills NSPS and EG in 
40 CFR part 60, subparts XXX and Cf, respectively (81 FR 59332; 81 FR 
59313). The 2016 EG revision updates the control requirements and 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions for existing MSW 
landfill sources.
    The current MSW landfills EG, found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, 
concerns the regulation of landfill gas and its

[[Page 59377]]

components, including methane, from MSW landfills for which 
construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced on or 
before July 17, 2014. The deadline to submit a state plan to the EPA 
was May 30, 2017. On May 21, 2021, EPA finalized the MSW landfills 
federal plan in 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO (86 FR 27756). The MSW 
landfills federal plan at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO, applies to 
states that do not have an EPA-approved state plan. The MSW landfills 
federal plan is currently in effect in Arkansas.
    In order to fulfill obligations under CAA section 111(d), the 
Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of 
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a state plan for the control of 
emissions from existing MSW landfills for the State of Arkansas on June 
20, 2022, and supplemented its submittal on August 24, 2022, and August 
31, 2022.\1\ The Arkansas MSW landfills plan implements and enforces 
the applicable provisions under the MSW landfills EG at 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Cf, and additionally meets the relevant requirements of the CAA 
section 111(d) implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. 
The Arkansas submittal and the supplements are included in the public 
docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0546).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Arkansas plan submitted by ADEQ does not cover sources 
located in Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Evaluation

    The EPA has evaluated the Arkansas MSW landfills plan to determine 
whether the plan meets applicable requirements from the MSW landfills 
EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and the CAA section 111(d) 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The EPA's 
detailed rationale and discussion on the Arkansas MSW landfills plan 
can be found in the EPA Technical Support Document (TSD), located in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
    The Arkansas state plan submittal package includes all materials 
necessary to be deemed administratively and technically complete 
according to the criteria of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The state plan 
document (the ``Arkansas State Plan for 111(d) Designated Facilities'') 
includes all the necessary authority for the implementation and 
enforcement of the MSW landfill Emission Guidelines in the State. 
Specifically, the State appropriately incorporated all applicable EG 
requirements from 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, into the Arkansas 
Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APC&EC) Rule 19, Chapter 17. 
Both the adopted state plan document and the relevant APC&EC 
regulations, as well as all other relevant plan submittal materials may 
be found in the docket for this action. Necessary State legal and 
enforcement authorities required for plan approval are located 
elsewhere in Arkansas's statute, rules and regulations and have been 
reviewed and approved of by the EPA in the course of prior state 
implementation plan as well as section 111(d) and/or 129 state plan 
approvals. See 40 CFR part 52, subpart E, and 40 CFR part 62, subpart 
E.
    The Arkansas MSW landfills plan has been evaluated in detail in the 
TSD. Our evaluation demonstrates that the Arkansas MSW landfills plan 
meets the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf and subpart B, and 
is consistent with the requirements for an approvable section 111(d) 
state plans for MSW landfills.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the Arkansas MSW landfill plan 
submitted by ADEQ in accordance with the requirements of section 111(d) 
of the CAA and to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart E, to codify EPA's 
approval. The EPA is proposing to find that the Arkansas MSW landfill 
plan is at least as protective as the Federal requirements provided 
under the MSW landfills EG, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 
Once approved by the EPA, the Arkansas MSW landfills plan will become 
federally enforceable.

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    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.'' \2\ EPA is providing 
additional analysis of environmental justice associated with this 
action. We are doing so for the purpose of providing information to the 
public, not as a basis of our proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA conducted screening analyses using EJSCREEN, an environmental 
justice mapping and screening tool that provides EPA with a nationally 
consistent dataset and approach for combining various environmental and 
demographic indicators.\3\ The EJSCREEN tool presents these indicators 
at a Census block group (CBG) level or a larger user-specified 
``buffer'' area that covers multiple CBGs.\4\ An individual CBG is a 
cluster of contiguous blocks within the same census tract and generally 
contains between 600 and 3,000 people. EJSCREEN is not a tool for 
performing in-depth risk analysis, but is instead a screening tool that 
provides an initial representation of indicators related to 
environmental justice and is subject to uncertainty in some underlying 
data (e.g., some environmental indicators are based on monitoring data 
which are not uniformly available; others are based on self-reported 
data).\5\ To help mitigate this uncertainty, we have summarized 
EJSCREEN data within larger ``buffer'' areas covering multiple block 
groups and representing the average resident within the buffer areas 
surrounding the MSW landfills. We present EJSCREEN environmental 
indicators to help screen for locations where residents may experience 
a higher overall pollution burden than would be expected for a block 
group with the same total population. These indicators of overall 
pollution burden include estimates of ambient particulate matter 
(PM2.5) and ozone concentration, a score for traffic 
proximity and volume, percentage of pre-1960 housing units (lead paint 
indicator), and scores for proximity to Superfund sites, risk 
management plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
    \4\ See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html.
    \5\ In addition, EJSCREEN relies on the five-year block group 
estimates from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. The 
advantage of using five-year over single-year estimates is increased 
statistical reliability of the data (i.e., lower sampling error), 
particularly for small geographic areas and population groups. For 
more information, see https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_general_handbook_2020.pdf.

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

[[Page 59378]]

(RMP) sites, and hazardous waste facilities.\6\ EJSCREEN also provides 
information on demographic indicators, including percent low-income, 
communities of color, linguistic isolation, and less than high school 
education. The EPA prepared EJSCREEN reports covering buffer areas of 
approximately 3-mile radii around the existing MSW landfills in 
Arkansas. Table 1 presents a summary of results from the EPA's 
screening-level analysis for the areas surrounding each MSW landfill 
compared to the U.S. as a whole, where the landfill was located in an 
area where one or more of the EJ indices were greater than the 80th 
percentiles (the full, detailed EJSCREEN reports are provided in the 
docket for this rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For additional information on environmental indicators and 
proximity scores in EJSCREEN, see ``EJSCREEN Environmental Justice 
Mapping and Screening Tool: EJSCREEN Technical Documentation,'' 
Chapter 3 and Appendix C (September 2019) at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/ejscreen_technical_document.pdf.

                          Table 1--EJSCREEN Analysis Summary for Existing Arkansas MSW Landfills With EJ Indices Above 80%tile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Values for buffer areas (radius) for each MSW landfill and the U.S. (percentile within U.S. where indicated)
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Variables              Little Rock Municipal                              Fulton Landfill--       City of West Helena
                                     Landfill (Pulaski, 3    ModelFill Landfill      Cloverdale (Benton, 3     Landfill (Phillips,          U.S.
                                            miles)           (Pulaski, 3 miles)             miles)                  3 miles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollution Burden Indicators:
    Particulate matter (PM2.5),     9.79 [mu]g/m\3\ (80th  9.9 [mu]g/m\3\ (82nd   9.39 [mu]g/m\3\ (72nd       8.68 [mu]g/m\3\       8.74 [mu]g/m\3\ (--)
     annual average.                 %ile).                 %ile).                 %ile).                      (52nd %ile).
    Ozone, summer seasonal average  41.4 ppb (40th %ile).  41.6 ppb (43rd %ile).  43.1 ppb (58th %ile)......  40.4 ppb (34th %ile)  42.6 ppb (--)
     of daily 8-hour max.
    Traffic proximity and volume    120 (37th %ile)......  650 (74th %ile)......  210 (48th %ile)...........  110 (35th %ile).....  710 (--)
     score*.
    Lead paint (percentage pre-     0.11% (41st %ile)....  0.39% (71st %ile)....  0.1% (40th %ile)..........  0.26% (60th %ile)...  0.28% (--)
     1960 housing).
    Superfund proximity score *...  0.033 (29th %ile)....  0.039 (34th %ile)....  0.018 (15th %ile).........  0.27 (90th %ile)....  0.13 (--)
    RMP proximity score *.........  1.1 (78th %ile)......  2.7 (94th %ile)......  1.5 (85th %ile)...........  0.37 (53rd %ile)....  0.75 (--)
    Hazardous waste proximity       1.9 (70th %ile)......  2 (70th %ile)........  0.7 (49th %ile)...........  1.4 (64th %ile).....  2.2 (--)
     score *.
Demographic Indicators:
    People of color population....  74% (79th %ile)......  77% (81st %ile)......  31% (49th %ile)...........  73% (79th %ile).....  40% (--)
    Low-income population.........  56% (86th %ile)......  53% (83rd %ile)......  39% (67th %ile)...........  63% (90th %ile).....  31% (--)
    Linguistically isolated         4% (69th %ile).......  4% (66th %ile).......  6% (76th %ile)............  0% (45th %ile)......  5% (--)
     population.
    Population with less than high  22% (82nd %ile)......  15% (69th %ile)......  20% (79th %ile)...........  19% (77th %ile).....  12% (--)
     school education.
    Population under 5 years of     10% (87th %ile)......  7% (60th %ile).......  5% (44th %ile)............  8% (77th %ile)......  6%
     age.
    Population over 64 years of     10% (30th %ile)......  12% (40th %ile)......  14% (49th %ile)...........  19% (69th %ile).....  16% (--)
     age.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The traffic proximity and volume indicator is a score calculated by daily traffic count divided by distance in meters to the road. The Superfund
  proximity, RMP proximity, and hazardous waste proximity indicators are all scores calculated by site or facility counts divided by distance in
  kilometers.

    This proposed rule is proposing to approve Arkansas's MSW Landfills 
Plan, received on June 20, 2022, in accordance with section 111(d) of 
the CAA. The Arkansas MSW Landfills Plan incorporates federal 
requirements for MSW landfills, as specified in the MSW landfills EG at 
40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, which are also implemented under the MSW 
Landfills Federal Plan at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO. The MSW 
Landfills Federal Plan was implemented by EPA in Arkansas as Arkansas 
did not have an approved MSW landfills plan addressing applicable EG 
requirements. These EG requirements implemented under the MSW Landfills 
Federal Plan and now incorporated by Arkansas in its MSW landfills plan 
is designed to result in significant emissions reductions for MSW 
landfills, as described in the Federal Registers for the MSW landfill 
rules (80 FR 52100; 81 FR 59276). Landfill gas is a natural byproduct 
of the decomposition of organic material in landfills and is composed 
of roughly 50% methane, 50% carbon dioxide (CO2), and less 
than 1% non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) by volume, which include 
volatile organic

[[Page 59379]]

compounds (VOC) and various organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP).\7\ 
VOC emissions are precursors to both fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) and ozone formation; exposure to PM2.5 
and ozone is associated with significant public health effects, 
including (1) cardiovascular morbidity such as heart attacks, (2) 
respiratory morbidity such as asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, (3) 
hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and (4) premature 
mortality.\8\ Hazardous air pollutants may cause cancer or other 
serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth 
defects.\9\ In addition, methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a 
global warming potential 28-36 times greater than CO2. 
Therefore, we believe that these requirements for existing MSW 
landfills and resulting emissions reductions have climate benefits and 
have contributed to reduced environmental and health impacts on all 
populations impacted by emissions from these sources in Arkansas, 
including people of color and low-income populations, and will continue 
to do so under Federal oversight. This proposed rule is not anticipated 
to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or 
environmental effects on communities with environmental justice 
concerns because it is not anticipated to result in or contribute to 
emissions increases in Arkansas. If finalized as proposed, EPA's 
approval of the Arkansas MSW Landfills Plan will make the Plan and the 
corresponding MSW landfills EG requirements incorporated into the Plan 
federally enforceable by EPA as of the effective date of the final 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 80 FR 52099, August 27, 2015.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-management-process/managing-air-quality-human-health-environmental-and-economic#what.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA 
section 111(d) submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 
40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Thus, 
in reviewing CAA section 111(d) state plan submissions, EPA's role is 
to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 
Act and implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely 
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does 
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 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);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This proposed rule also does not have Tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

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

    Dated: September 26, 2022.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2022-21245 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.