Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Oklahoma; Control of Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 102847-102851 [2024-29454]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Proposed Rules
• Do the proposed priority and
requirements contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with their
clarity?
• Does the format of the proposed
priority and requirements (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their
clarity?
• Would the proposed priority and
requirements be easier to understand if
we divided them into more (but shorter)
sections?
• Could the description of the
proposed priority and requirements in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed priority and
requirements easier to understand? If so,
how?
• What else could we do to make the
proposed priority and requirements
easier to understand?
To send any comments about how the
Department could make this proposed
priority and requirements easier to
understand, see the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification: The Secretary certifies that
this proposed priority and these
proposed requirements would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Participation in the Innovative
Rehabilitation Training program is
voluntary. In addition, the only eligible
entities for this program are State
agencies or their equivalents under State
law, Public, Private and Nonprofit
Entities, including Indian Tribes and
Institutions of Higher Education, which
do not meet the definition of a small
entity. We expect that in determining
whether to apply for Innovative
Rehabilitation Training program funds,
an eligible entity would evaluate the
requirements of preparing an
application and any associated costs
and weigh them against the benefits
likely to be achieved by receiving a
program grant. An eligible entity
probably would apply only if it
determines that the likely benefits
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:38 Dec 17, 2024
Jkt 265001
exceed the costs of preparing an
application.
We believe that the proposed priority
and requirements would not impose any
additional burden on a small entity
applying for a grant than the entity
would face in the absence of the
proposed action. That is, the length of
the applications those entities would
submit in the absence of the proposed
regulatory action and the time needed to
prepare an application would likely be
the same.
This proposed regulatory action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a small entity once it receives
a grant because it would be able to meet
the costs of compliance using the funds
provided under this program. We invite
comments from eligible small entities as
to whether they believe this proposed
regulatory action would have a
significant economic impact on them
and, if so, request evidence to support
that belief.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
The proposed priority and requirements
contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB
under OMB control number 1894–0006.
Accessible Format: On request to the
program contact person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
individuals with disabilities can obtain
this document in an accessible format.
The Department will provide the
requestor with an accessible format that
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or
text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3
file, braille, large print, audiotape, or
compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations at
www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site. You may also
access documents of the Department
published in the Federal Register by
using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically,
through the advanced search feature at
this site, you can limit your search to
documents published by the
Department.
Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024–29996 Filed 12–17–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
102847
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[EPA–R06–OAR–2024–0232; FRL–12425–
01–R6]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Air Quality Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants; Oklahoma;
Control of Emissions From Existing
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
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
of Oklahoma for sources subject to the
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills
Emission Guidelines (EG). The
Oklahoma 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 February 18, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2024–0232, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
gesualdo.matthew@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 Matthew Gesualdo, (214) 665–
6530, gesualdo.matthew@epa.gov. For
the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
102848
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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:
Matthew Gesualdo, EPA Region 6
Office, Air and Radiation Division—
State Planning and Implementation
Branch, (214) 665–6530,
gesualdo.matthew@epa.gov. We
encourage the public to submit
comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. 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.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:38 Dec 17, 2024
Jkt 265001
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
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 Oklahoma.
In order to fulfill obligations under
CAA section 111(d), the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) submitted a revised State plan
for the control of emissions from
existing MSW landfills for the State of
Oklahoma on April 30, 2024.1 The
Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma submittal
and the supplements are included in the
public docket for this rulemaking
(Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2024–
0232).
II. Evaluation
The EPA has evaluated the Oklahoma
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 Oklahoma MSW
landfills plan can be found in the EPA
Technical Support Document (TSD),
1 The Oklahoma plan submitted by ODEQ does
cover sources located in Indian country with some
exclusions.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
located in the docket for this
rulemaking.
The 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
‘‘Oklahoma MSW Landfill State Plan’’)
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
Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC)
252:100–47, Control of Emissions from
Existing Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills. Both the adopted State plan
document and the relevant OAC
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 Oklahoma’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 Oklahoma MSW landfills plan
has been evaluated in detail in the TSD.
Our evaluation demonstrates that the
Oklahoma 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. Impact on Areas of Indian Country
Following the U.S. Supreme Court
decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.
Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the
State of Oklahoma requested approval
under Section 10211(a) of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A
Legacy for Users, Public Law 109–59,
119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005)
(‘‘SAFETEA’’), to administer in certain
areas of Indian country (as defined at 18
U.S.C. 1151) the State’s environmental
regulatory programs that were
previously approved by the EPA for
areas outside of Indian country. The
State’s request excluded certain areas of
Indian country further described below.
In addition, the State only sought
approval to the extent that such
approval is necessary for the State to
administer a program in light of
Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir.
2014).2
On October 1, 2020, the EPA
approved Oklahoma’s SAFETEA request
to administer all the State’s EPAapproved environmental regulatory
programs, including the Oklahoma SIP,
in the requested areas of Indian country.
As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA’s
approval under SAFETEA does not
include Indian country lands, including
rights-of-way running through the same,
that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been
extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c);
(2) are held in trust by the United States
on behalf of an individual Indian or
Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe,
if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to
such land, or an area that included such
land, in accordance with a treaty with
the United States to which such Tribe
was a party, and (b) never allotted the
land to a member or citizen of the Tribe
(collectively ‘‘excluded Indian country
lands’’).3
The EPA’s approval under SAFETEA
expressly provided that to the extent
EPA’s prior approvals of Oklahoma’s
environmental programs excluded
Indian country, any such exclusions are
superseded for the geographic areas of
Indian country covered by the EPA’s
approval of Oklahoma’s SAFETEA
request.4 The approval also provided
2 In ODEQ v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that
under the CAA, a state has the authority to
implement a SIP in non-reservation areas of Indian
country in the state, where there has been no
demonstration of Tribal jurisdiction. Under the D.C.
Circuit’s decision, the CAA does not provide
authority to states to implement SIPs in Indian
reservations. ODEQ did not, however, substantively
address the separate authority in Indian country
provided specifically to Oklahoma under
SAFETEA. That separate authority was not invoked
until the State submitted its request under
SAFETEA, and was not approved until EPA’s
decision, described in this section, on October 1,
2020.
3 In accordance with Executive Order 13990, EPA
is currently reviewing our October 1, 2020,
SAFETEA approval. On December 22, 2021, EPA
proposed to withdraw and reconsider the October
1, 2020, SAFETEA approval. See https://
www.epa.gov/ok/proposed-withdrawal-andreconsideration-and-supporting-information. EPA
expects to have further discussions with Tribal
governments and State of Oklahoma as part of this
reconsideration. EPA also notes that the October 1,
2020, approval is the subject of a pending challenge
in Federal court. Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma v.
Regan, No. 20–9635 (10th Cir.). Pending completion
of EPA’s review, EPA is proceeding with this
proposed action in accordance with the October 1,
2020, approval. EPA may make further changes to
the approval of Oklahoma’s plan to reflect the
outcome of the proposed withdrawal and
reconsideration of the October 1, 2020 SAFETEA
approval. To the extent any change occurs in the
scope of Oklahoma’s CAA 111(d)/129 authority in
Indian country before the finalization of this
proposed rule, such a change may affect the scope
of the EPA’s final action on the proposed rule.
4 EPA’s prior approvals relating to Oklahoma’s
CAA section 111(d)/129 plans did not apply in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:38 Dec 17, 2024
Jkt 265001
that future revisions or amendments to
Oklahoma’s approved environmental
regulatory programs would extend to
the covered areas of Indian country
(without any further need for additional
requests under SAFETEA).
As explained earlier in this action, the
EPA is proposing to approve the
Oklahoma CAA section 111(d) MSW
landfill State plan that was submitted by
the State of Oklahoma on April 30,
2024. More specifically, we are
proposing to approve Oklahoma’s MSW
landfill plan addressing CAA section
111(d) requirements for MSW under the
MSW landfill EG codified at 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cf. The Oklahoma MSW
landfill plan applies statewide, but only
affects specific types of facilities, as
discussed earlier in this document.
Consistent with the EPA’s October 1,
2020, SAFETEA approval, if this
approval is finalized as proposed, this
Oklahoma MSW landfill plan will apply
to all Indian country within Oklahoma,
other than the excluded Indian country
lands, as described earlier. EPA has
identified multiple existing facilities
located within currently recognized
reservation areas and not on excluded
Indian country lands. These facilities
will be subject to the Oklahoma MSW
landfill plan we are proposing to
approve. Any newly constructed
municipal solid waste landfill in these
same areas would be subject to the
MSW landfill NSPS, not the MSW
landfill plan implementing the MSW
landfill EG requirements.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
Oklahoma MSW landfill plan submitted
by ODEQ 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
Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma MSW landfills plan will
become federally enforceable.
V. Environmental Justice
Considerations
Information on Executive Order 12898
(Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994), Executive Order 14094
(Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment
areas of Indian country located in the state. See,
e.g., 70 FR 57764 (October 4, 2005). Such prior
expressed limitations are superseded by the EPA’s
approval of Oklahoma’s SAFETEA request.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
102849
to Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR
25251, April 26, 2023), and how EPA
defines environmental justice can be
found in the section titled ‘‘Statutory
and Executive Order Reviews’’ in this
proposed rule.5 EPA is providing
additional analysis of environmental
justice associated with this action. The
results of this analysis are being
provided for informational and
transparency purposes, 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.6 The
EJSCREEN tool presents these indicators
at a Census block group (CBG) level or
a larger user-specified ‘‘buffer’’ area that
covers multiple CBGs.7 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).8 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
5 See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/
learn-about-environmental-justice.
6 The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://
www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
7 See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/
geography/about/glossary.html.
8 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\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
102850
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Proposed Rules
indicator), and scores for proximity to
Superfund sites, risk management plan
(RMP) sites, and hazardous waste
facilities.9 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
Oklahoma. 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 OKLAHOMA 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
Enid City
Landfill
(Garfield, 3
miles)
Great Plains
(Pocasset)
Landfill
(Grady, 3
miles)
Ponca City
Landfill (Kay, 3
miles)
Muskogee
Community
Landfill
(Muskogee, 3
miles)
Newcastle
Landfill
(McClain, 3
miles)
Osage Landfill
(Osage, 3
miles)
Quarry Landfill
(Waste
Management
of OK) (Tulsa,
3 miles)
U.S.
Pollution Burden Indicators
Particulate matter (PM2.5),
annual average ..............
Ozone, summer seasonal
average of daily 8-hour
max ................................
Traffic proximity (daily traffic count/distance to
road) ..............................
Lead paint (percentage
pre-1960 housing) .........
Superfund proximity score*
RMP proximity score * .......
8.97 μg/m3
(74th %ile)
9.01 μg/m3
(75th %ile)
9.19 μg/m3
(78th %ile)
9.81 μg/m3
(86th %ile)
8.88 μg/m3
(71st %ile)
8.69 μg/m3
(66th %ile)
9.38 μg/m3
(81st %ile)
8.45 μg/m3
(—)
58.9 ppb
(42nd %ile)
59.2 ppb
(46th %ile)
57.2 ppb
(33rd %ile)
60.8 ppb
(52nd %ile)
53.7 ppb
(15th %ile)
59.1 ppb
(43rd %ile)
59.4 ppb
(44th %ile)
61.8 ppb
(—)
180,000
(23rd %ile)
57,000
(13th %ile)
45,000
(11th %ile)
250,000
(28th %ile)
200,000
(24th %ile)
180,000
(24th %ile)
680,000
(46th %ile)
1,700,000
(—)
0.52%
(75th %ile)
0.00
(0%ile)
1.20
(85th %ile)
0.14%
(41st %ile)
0.00
(0%ile)
0.22
(46th %ile)
0.43%
(69th %ile)
0.00
(0%ile)
1.30
(86th %ile)
0.045%
(25th %ile)
0.00
(0%ile)
0.28
(50th %ile)
0.30%
(58th %ile)
0.099
(59th %ile)
0.16
(40th %ile)
0.66%
(84th %ile)
0.99
(91st %ile)
0.95
(79th %ile)
0.074%
(31st %ile)
0.00
(0%ile)
1.60
(90th %ile)
0.30%
(—)
0.39
(—)
0.57
(—)
0.00
(0%ile)
0.13
(20th %ile)
0.36
(29th %ile)
0.27
(26th %ile)
0.15
(21st %ile)
1.00
(45th %ile)
4.60
(77th %ile)
3.5
(—)
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 .............................
39%
(57th %ile)
49%
(80th %ile)
15%
(29th %ile)
23%
(43rd %ile)
35%
(53rd %ile)
47%
(78th %ile)
23%
(40th %ile)
20%
(37th %ile)
53%
(68th %ile)
55%
(85th %ile)
30%
(48th %ile)
46%
(77th %ile)
24%
(42nd %ile)
32%
(58th %ile)
40%
(—)
30%
(—)
2%
(65th %ile)
1%
(57th %ile)
1%
(58th %ile)
0%
(0%ile)
2%
(64th %ile)
1%
(58th %ile)
2%
(62nd %ile)
5%
(—)
18%
(79th %ile)
7%
(48th %ile)
13%
(69th %ile)
9%
(55th %ile)
15%
(72nd %ile)
11%
(63rd %ile)
9%
(53rd %ile)
11%
(—)
7%
(73rd %ile)
4%
(38th %ile)
4%
(46th %ile)
7%
(69th %ile)
8%
(75th %ile)
8%
(78th %ile)
5%
(50th %ile)
5%
(—)
10%
(25th %ile)
31%
(89th %ile)
15%
(46th %ile)
12%
(32nd %ile)
17%
(53rd %ile)
15%
(45th %ile)
29%
(86th %ile)
18%
(—)
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD 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.
EPA proposes to approve Oklahoma’s
MSW Landfills Plan, received on April
30, 2024, in accordance with section
111(d) of the CAA. The Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma
as Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma 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
9 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
15:38 Dec 17, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Proposed Rules
compounds (VOC) and various organic
hazardous air pollutants (HAP).10 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.11 Hazardous air pollutants
may cause cancer or other serious health
effects, such as reproductive effects or
birth defects.12 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 Oklahoma,
including communities with
environmental justice concerns, 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
Oklahoma. If finalized as proposed,
EPA’s approval of the Oklahoma 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.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. 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, the
EPA’s role is to approve State plans that
meet the criteria of the CAA and
implementing regulations. Accordingly,
this action merely proposes to approve
State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
10 See
80 FR 52099, August 27, 2015.
11 Id.
12 See https://www.epa.gov/air-qualitymanagement-process/managing-air-quality-humanhealth-environmental-and-economic#what.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:38 Dec 17, 2024
Jkt 265001
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 approval of revisions
to the Oklahoma 111(d) State plan in
accordance with section 111(d) of the
CAA as discussed more fully elsewhere
in this document will apply, if finalized
as proposed, to certain areas of Indian
country as discussed in the preamble,
and therefore has Tribal implications as
specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). However, 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 Oklahoma tribe implements a
regulatory program under the CAA, and
thus does not have applicable or related
Tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
102851
Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4,
2011), the EPA has engaged with Tribal
governments that may be affected by
this action and provided information
about this action.
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 communities with
environmental justice (EJ) concerns to
the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. Executive Order
14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation’s
Commitment to Environmental Justice
for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023)
builds on and supplements E.O. 12898
and defines EJ as, among other things,
‘‘the just treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people, regardless of
income, race, color, national origin, or
Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency
decision-making and other Federal
activities that affect human health and
the environment.’’
The air agency did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its submittal;
the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require
such an evaluation. EPA performed an
EJ analysis, as is described 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. 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. In addition, there is no information
in the record upon which this decision
is based inconsistent with the stated
goal of E.O. 12898/14096 of achieving EJ
for communities with EJ concerns.
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: December 9, 2024.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2024–29454 Filed 12–17–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 102847-102851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29454]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[EPA-R06-OAR-2024-0232; FRL-12425-01-R6]
Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Oklahoma; 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 Oklahoma for sources
subject to the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills Emission
Guidelines (EG). The Oklahoma 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 February 18,
2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2024-0232, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]v. 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 Matthew Gesualdo, (214)
665-6530, [email protected]v. For the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit
[[Page 102848]]
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: Matthew Gesualdo, EPA Region 6 Office,
Air and Radiation Division--State Planning and Implementation Branch,
(214) 665-6530, [email protected]v. We encourage the public to
submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov. 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 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
Oklahoma.
In order to fulfill obligations under CAA section 111(d), the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted a revised
State plan for the control of emissions from existing MSW landfills for
the State of Oklahoma on April 30, 2024.\1\ The Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma submittal and
the supplements are included in the public docket for this rulemaking
(Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2024-0232).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Oklahoma plan submitted by ODEQ does cover sources
located in Indian country with some exclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Evaluation
The EPA has evaluated the Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma MSW landfills plan
can be found in the EPA Technical Support Document (TSD), located in
the docket for this rulemaking.
The 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
``Oklahoma MSW Landfill State Plan'') 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 Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252:100-47,
Control of Emissions from Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
Both the adopted State plan document and the relevant OAC 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
Oklahoma'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 Oklahoma MSW landfills plan has been evaluated in detail in the
TSD. Our evaluation demonstrates that the Oklahoma 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. Impact on Areas of Indian Country
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma,
140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the State of Oklahoma requested
approval under Section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users, Public
Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) (``SAFETEA''), to
administer in certain areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C.
1151) the State's environmental regulatory programs that were
previously approved by the EPA for areas outside of Indian country. The
State's request excluded certain areas of Indian country further
described below. In addition, the State only sought approval to the
extent that such approval is necessary for the State to administer a
program in light of Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental
[[Page 102849]]
Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In ODEQ v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that under the CAA, a
state has the authority to implement a SIP in non-reservation areas
of Indian country in the state, where there has been no
demonstration of Tribal jurisdiction. Under the D.C. Circuit's
decision, the CAA does not provide authority to states to implement
SIPs in Indian reservations. ODEQ did not, however, substantively
address the separate authority in Indian country provided
specifically to Oklahoma under SAFETEA. That separate authority was
not invoked until the State submitted its request under SAFETEA, and
was not approved until EPA's decision, described in this section, on
October 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2020, the EPA approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to
administer all the State's EPA-approved environmental regulatory
programs, including the Oklahoma SIP, in the requested areas of Indian
country. As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA's approval under SAFETEA
does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running
through the same, that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian
titles to which have not been extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c);
(2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual
Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a)
acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such
land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such
Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or
citizen of the Tribe (collectively ``excluded Indian country
lands'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In accordance with Executive Order 13990, EPA is currently
reviewing our October 1, 2020, SAFETEA approval. On December 22,
2021, EPA proposed to withdraw and reconsider the October 1, 2020,
SAFETEA approval. See https://www.epa.gov/ok/proposed-withdrawal-and-reconsideration-and-supporting-information. EPA expects to have
further discussions with Tribal governments and State of Oklahoma as
part of this reconsideration. EPA also notes that the October 1,
2020, approval is the subject of a pending challenge in Federal
court. Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma v. Regan, No. 20-9635 (10th Cir.).
Pending completion of EPA's review, EPA is proceeding with this
proposed action in accordance with the October 1, 2020, approval.
EPA may make further changes to the approval of Oklahoma's plan to
reflect the outcome of the proposed withdrawal and reconsideration
of the October 1, 2020 SAFETEA approval. To the extent any change
occurs in the scope of Oklahoma's CAA 111(d)/129 authority in Indian
country before the finalization of this proposed rule, such a change
may affect the scope of the EPA's final action on the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the
extent EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs
excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the
geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of
Oklahoma's SAFETEA request.\4\ The approval also provided that future
revisions or amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory
programs would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without
any further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA's prior approvals relating to Oklahoma's CAA section
111(d)/129 plans did not apply in areas of Indian country located in
the state. See, e.g., 70 FR 57764 (October 4, 2005). Such prior
expressed limitations are superseded by the EPA's approval of
Oklahoma's SAFETEA request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained earlier in this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve the Oklahoma CAA section 111(d) MSW landfill State plan that
was submitted by the State of Oklahoma on April 30, 2024. More
specifically, we are proposing to approve Oklahoma's MSW landfill plan
addressing CAA section 111(d) requirements for MSW under the MSW
landfill EG codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. The Oklahoma MSW
landfill plan applies statewide, but only affects specific types of
facilities, as discussed earlier in this document. Consistent with the
EPA's October 1, 2020, SAFETEA approval, if this approval is finalized
as proposed, this Oklahoma MSW landfill plan will apply to all Indian
country within Oklahoma, other than the excluded Indian country lands,
as described earlier. EPA has identified multiple existing facilities
located within currently recognized reservation areas and not on
excluded Indian country lands. These facilities will be subject to the
Oklahoma MSW landfill plan we are proposing to approve. Any newly
constructed municipal solid waste landfill in these same areas would be
subject to the MSW landfill NSPS, not the MSW landfill plan
implementing the MSW landfill EG requirements.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the Oklahoma MSW landfill plan
submitted by ODEQ 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 Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma MSW landfills plan will become
federally enforceable.
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
Information on Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), Executive Order 14094
(Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All,
88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023), and how EPA defines environmental justice
can be found in the section titled ``Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews'' in this proposed rule.\5\ EPA is providing additional
analysis of environmental justice associated with this action. The
results of this analysis are being provided for informational and
transparency purposes, not as a basis of our proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.\6\ The EJSCREEN tool presents these indicators
at a Census block group (CBG) level or a larger user-specified
``buffer'' area that covers multiple CBGs.\7\ 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).\8\ 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
[[Page 102850]]
indicator), and scores for proximity to Superfund sites, risk
management plan (RMP) sites, and hazardous waste facilities.\9\
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 Oklahoma. 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\ The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
\7\ See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html.
\8\ 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.
\9\ 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 Oklahoma 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)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quarry
Enid City Great Plains Newcastle Muskogee Landfill
Variables Landfill (Pocasset) Ponca City Landfill Community Osage Landfill (Waste
(Garfield, 3 Landfill Landfill (Kay, (McClain, 3 Landfill (Osage, 3 Management of U.S.
miles) (Grady, 3 3 miles) miles) (Muskogee, 3 miles) OK) (Tulsa, 3
miles) miles) miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollution Burden Indicators
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter (PM2.5), annual average...................... 8.97 [micro]g/ 9.01 [micro]g/ 9.19 [micro]g/ 9.81 [micro]g/ 8.88 [micro]g/ 8.69 [micro]g/ 9.38 [micro]g/ 8.45 [micro]g/
m\3\ m\3\ (75th m\3\ (78th m\3\ (86th m\3\ (71st m\3\ (66th m\3\ (81st m\3\
(74th %ile) %ile) %ile) %ile) %ile) %ile) %ile) (--)
Ozone, summer seasonal average of daily 8-hour max.............. 58.9 ppb 59.2 ppb 57.2 ppb 60.8 ppb 53.7 ppb 59.1 ppb 59.4 ppb 61.8 ppb
(42nd %ile) (46th %ile) (33rd %ile) (52nd %ile) (15th %ile) (43rd %ile) (44th %ile) (--)
Traffic proximity (daily traffic count/distance to road)........ 180,000 57,000 45,000 250,000 200,000 180,000 680,000 1,700,000
(23rd %ile) (13th %ile) (11th %ile) (28th %ile) (24th %ile) (24th %ile) (46th %ile) (--)
Lead paint (percentage pre-1960 housing)........................ 0.52% 0.14% 0.43% 0.045% 0.30% 0.66% 0.074% 0.30%
(75th %ile) (41st %ile) (69th %ile) (25th %ile) (58th %ile) (84th %ile) (31st %ile) (--)
Superfund proximity score*...................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.099 0.99 0.00 0.39
(0%ile) (0%ile) (0%ile) (0%ile) (59th %ile) (91st %ile) (0%ile) (--)
RMP proximity score *........................................... 1.20 0.22 1.30 0.28 0.16 0.95 1.60 0.57
(85th %ile) (46th %ile) (86th %ile) (50th %ile) (40th %ile) (79th %ile) (90th %ile) (--)
Hazardous waste proximity score *............................... 0.00 0.13 0.36 0.27 0.15 1.00 4.60 3.5
(0%ile) (20th %ile) (29th %ile) (26th %ile) (21st %ile) (45th %ile) (77th %ile) (--)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographic Indicators
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People of color population...................................... 39% 15% 35% 23% 53% 30% 24% 40%
(57th %ile) (29th %ile) (53rd %ile) (40th %ile) (68th %ile) (48th %ile) (42nd %ile) (--)
Low-income population........................................... 49% 23% 47% 20% 55% 46% 32% 30%
(80th %ile) (43rd %ile) (78th %ile) (37th %ile) (85th %ile) (77th %ile) (58th %ile) (--)
Linguistically isolated population.............................. 2% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 2% 5%
(65th %ile) (57th %ile) (58th %ile) (0%ile) (64th %ile) (58th %ile) (62nd %ile) (--)
Population with less than high school education................. 18% 7% 13% 9% 15% 11% 9% 11%
(79th %ile) (48th %ile) (69th %ile) (55th %ile) (72nd %ile) (63rd %ile) (53rd %ile) (--)
Population under 5 years of age................................. 7% 4% 4% 7% 8% 8% 5% 5%
(73rd %ile) (38th %ile) (46th %ile) (69th %ile) (75th %ile) (78th %ile) (50th %ile) (--)
Population over 64 years of age................................. 10% 31% 15% 12% 17% 15% 29% 18%
(25th %ile) (89th %ile) (46th %ile) (32nd %ile) (53rd %ile) (45th %ile) (86th %ile) (--)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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.
EPA proposes to approve Oklahoma's MSW Landfills Plan, received on
April 30, 2024, in accordance with section 111(d) of the CAA. The
Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma as Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma 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 102851]]
compounds (VOC) and various organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP).\10\
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.\11\ Hazardous air pollutants may cause cancer or other
serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth
defects.\12\ 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 Oklahoma,
including communities with environmental justice concerns, 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 Oklahoma. If finalized as proposed, EPA's
approval of the Oklahoma 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 80 FR 52099, August 27, 2015.
\11\ Id.
\12\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-management-process/managing-air-quality-human-health-environmental-and-economic#what.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. 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, the EPA's role
is to approve State plans that meet the criteria of the CAA 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 approval of revisions to the Oklahoma 111(d) State
plan in accordance with section 111(d) of the CAA as discussed more
fully elsewhere in this document will apply, if finalized as proposed,
to certain areas of Indian country as discussed in the preamble, and
therefore has Tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). However, 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 Oklahoma tribe
implements a regulatory program under the CAA, and thus does not have
applicable or related Tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011), the EPA
has engaged with Tribal governments that may be affected by this action
and provided information about this action.
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 communities with environmental justice
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on
and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, ``the
just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of
income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or
disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that
affect human health and the environment.''
The air agency did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA performed an EJ analysis,
as is described 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. 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. In addition, there is
no information in the record upon which this decision is based
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898/14096 of achieving EJ
for communities with EJ concerns.
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: December 9, 2024.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2024-29454 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
