72476 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Notices 

142 In deciding whether to invoke the exception 

by making and publishing a finding that this final 

action is based on a determination of nationwide 

scope or effect, the Administrator has also taken 

into account a number of policy considerations, 

including his judgment balancing the benefit of 

obtaining the D.C. Circuit’s authoritative centralized 

review versus allowing development of the issue in 

other contexts and the best use of Agency resources. 

authorization request for its 2020 AtBerth Amendments. Based on CARB’s 

submissions, relevant adverse comment, 

and other comments in the record, EPA 

is granting an authorization under 

section 209(e)(2)(A) of the CAA for 

CARB’s 2020 At-Berth Amendments. 

The opponents of the authorization 

request have not met their burden of 

proof to demonstrate or to adequately 

support an EPA finding that CARB and 

its 2020 At-Berth Amendments fail to 

meet the three authorization criteria in 

section 202(e)(2)(A)(i)–(iii) of the CAA. 

A. Judicial Review 

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs 

judicial review of final actions by the 

EPA. This section provides, in part, that 

petitions for review must be filed in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit: (i) when 

the agency action consists of ‘‘nationally 

applicable regulations promulgated, or 

final actions taken, by the 

Administrator,’’ or (ii) when such action 

is locally or regionally applicable, but 

‘‘such action is based on a 

determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ For locally or regionally 

applicable final actions, the CAA 

reserves to the EPA complete discretion 

whether to invoke the exception in (ii). 

To the extent a court finds this final 

action to be locally or regionally 

applicable, the Administrator is 

exercising the complete discretion 

afforded to him under the CAA to make 

and publish a finding that this action is 

based on a determination of 

‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ within the 

meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1) for 

several reasons.142 This final action 

grants an authorization for amendments 

to California’s At-Berth Regulations that 

were previously authorized by EPA. As 

such, this final action will affect any 

person who owns, operates, charters, or 

leases any United States or foreign-flag 

OGV that visits a California port, 

terminal, or berth; any person who 

owns, operates, or leases a port, 

terminal, or berth located where OGVs 

visit, or any person who owns, operates, 

or leases a CARB approved CAECS for 

OGV auxiliary engines or tanker 

auxiliary boilers. Furthermore, the AtBerth Regulations, and the amendments 

to those regulations that are the subject 

of today’s action, the 2020 At-Berth 

Amendments, are part of California’s 

nonroad emissions program that, 

together with its on-highway emissions 

program, are regulatory programs that 

EPA may waive under CAA section 209. 

As required by statute, in evaluating the 

authorization criteria in this action, EPA 

considers not only the 2020 At-Berth 

Amendments in isolation, but in the 

context of the entire California nonroad 

emission program. See CAA section 

209(e)(2)(A) (requiring that the 

protectiveness finding be made for 

California’s standards ‘‘in the 

aggregate’’). Moreover, EPA generally 

applies a consistent statutory 

interpretation and analytical framework 

in evaluating and deciding various 

authorization and waiver requests under 

CAA section 209. EPA also relies on the 

extensive body of D.C. Circuit case law 

developed by that Court since 1979 as 

it has reviewed and decided judicial 

challenges to these actions. As such, 

judicial review of any challenge to this 

action in the D.C. Circuit will centralize 

review of national issues in that Court 

and advance other Congressional 

principles underlying this CAA 

provision of avoiding piecemeal 

litigation, furthering judicial economy, 

and eliminating the risk of inconsistent 

judgments. For these reasons, the 

Administrator is exercising the 

complete discretion afforded to him by 

the CAA and hereby finds that this final 

action is based on a determination of 

nationwide scope or effect for purposes 

of CAA section 307(b)(1) and is hereby 

publishing that finding in the Federal 

Register. Under section 307(b)(1) of the 

CAA, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit by June 20, 2023. 

B. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

As with past authorization and waiver 

decisions, this action is not a rule as 

defined by Executive Order 12866. 

Therefore, it is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget as 

required for rules and regulations by 

Executive Order 12866. 

In addition, this action is not a rule 

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has 

not prepared a supporting regulatory 

flexibility analysis addressing the 

impact of this action on small business 

entities. 

Further, the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does 

not apply because this action is not a 

rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23261 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OGC–2023–0510; FRL–11458–01– 

OGC] 

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean 

Water Act Claim 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent 

decree; request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Administrator’s March 18, 2022, 

memorandum regarding ‘‘Consent 

Decrees and Settlement Agreements to 

resolve Environmental Claims Against 

the Agency,’’ notice is hereby given of 

a proposed consent decree in Arizona 

Mining Reform Coalition et al. v. 

Guzman et al. (D. Ariz. 2023). On 

September 27, 2023, the Arizona Mining 

Reform Coalition, the Center for 

Biological Diversity, Earthworks, the 

Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners 

Coalition, and the Grand Canyon 

Chapter of the Sierra Club (collectively, 

‘‘Plaintiffs’’) filed a complaint against 

EPA in the United States District Court 

for the District of Arizona alleging that 

the Agency failed to perform a 

mandatory duty under the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) to establish Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) for copper and 

lead impairments for Queen Creek, 

Arizona. This complaint followed 

submission of a Notice of Intent to Sue 

on August 9, 2022. EPA seeks public 

input on a proposed consent decree 

prior to its final decision-making with 

regard to potential settlement of the 

litigation. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed consent decree must be 

received by November 20, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OGC–2023–0510 online at https://

www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred 

method). Follow the online instructions 

for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID number for 

this action. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Notices 72477 

comments, see the ‘‘Additional 

Information About Commenting on the 

Proposed Consent Decree’’ heading 

under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alec 

Mullee, Water Law Office, Office of 

General Counsel, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; telephone: (202) 

564–9616; email address: mullee.alec@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Consent Decree 

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiffs 

filed a complaint in Federal district 

court asserting that the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) constructively submitted to 

EPA no TMDLs for copper and lead 

impairments in Queen Creek. Plaintiffs 

allege that for this reason EPA has a 

mandatory duty under the CWA to 

approve or disapprove the constructive 

submission and, upon disapproval, 

establish these TMDLs. Plaintiffs further 

allege that EPA has failed to meet this 

duty. Following submission of a Notice 

of Intent to Sue containing these 

assertions on August 9, 2022, the parties 

initiated settlement discussions, which 

produced the proposed consent decree. 

Under the consent decree, EPA would 

be obligated to establish copper and 

lead TMDLs for Queen Creek by July 31, 

2028, unless ADEQ first establishes and 

submits them to EPA by January 31, 

2027. If ADEQ submits the TMDLs to 

EPA, the proposed consent decree 

provides that Plaintiffs would not object 

to EPA taking up to an additional 60 

days beyond the 30-day statutory 

deadline to act on the submittal. If EPA 

disapproves the TMDLs submitted by 

ADEQ, Plaintiffs would not object to 

EPA taking up to 12 additional months 

beyond the 30-day statutory deadline to 

establish replacement TMDLs. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, EPA will accept written 

comments relating to the proposed 

consent decree from persons who are 

not parties to the litigation. EPA or the 

Department of Justice may withdraw or 

withhold consent to the proposed 

consent decree if the comments received 

disclose facts or considerations that 

indicate that such consent is 

inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CWA. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed Consent 

Decree 

A. How can I get a copy of the proposed 

consent decree? 

The official public docket for this 

action (identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OGC–2023–0510) contains a 

copy of the proposed consent decree. 

The official public docket is available 

for public viewing at the Office of 

Environmental Information (OEI) Docket 

in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OEI 

Docket is (202) 566–1752. 

The electronic version of the public 

docket for this action contains a copy of 

the proposed consent decree and is 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov. You may use 

https://www.regulations.gov to submit 

or view public comments, access the 

index listing of the contents of the 

official public docket, and access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

system, key in the appropriate docket 

identification number then select 

‘‘search.’’ 

B. How and to whom do I submit 

comments? 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OGC–2023– 

0510 via https://www.regulations.gov. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from this docket. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit to 

EPA’s docket at https://

www.regulations.gov 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. 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, 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-epadockets. For additional information 

about submitting information identified 

as CBI, please contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name, mailing address, and an email 

address or other contact information in 

the body of your comment. This ensures 

that you can be identified as the 

submitter of the comment and allows 

EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot 

read your comment due to technical 

difficulties or needs further information 

on the substance of your comment. Any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Use of the https://

www.regulations.gov website to submit 

comments to EPA electronically is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. The electronic public docket 

system is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity, email address, or 

other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

Please ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA does not plan to 

consider these late comments. 

Steven M. Neugeboren, 

Associate General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23239 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–11454–01–OMS] 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of 

a public meeting of the Good Neighbor 

Environmental Board (GNEB). The 

purpose of this meeting is for the board 

to discuss and approve the final 

integrated draft of its 20th 

comprehensive report on water and 

wastewater infrastructure issues and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1