Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 74171 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed 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 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a State program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a 

Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The air agency did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this proposed 

action. Due to the nature of the action 

being proposed here, this proposed 

action is expected to have a neutral to 

positive impact on the air quality of the 

affected area. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this proposed action, 

and there is no information in the 

record inconsistent with the stated goal 

of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 6, 2024. 

Jeaneanne Gettle, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20669 Filed 9–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2023–0466; FRL–12179– 

01–R4] 

Air Plan Approval; Forsyth County, 

North Carolina; Removal of Excess 

Emissions Provisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the North 

Carolina Division of Air Quality 

(NCDAQ) on behalf of the Forsyth 

County Office of Environmental 

Assistance and Protection (FCEAP or 

Forsyth County) on November 28, 2022. 

The revision was submitted in response 

to a finding of substantial inadequacy 

and SIP call published on June 12, 2015, 

concerning excess emissions during 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM) events, and is intended to correct 

deficiencies in the Forsyth County 

portion of the North Carolina SIP 

identified by EPA in the SIP call. EPA 

is proposing to approve the SIP revision 

in accordance with requirements for SIP 

provisions under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). In addition, EPA is 

proposing to approve minor and 

administrative changes to certain 

regulatory provisions that have been 

revised by the local agency since EPA’s 

last approval of those provisions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 3, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2023–0466 at regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. 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. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74172 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1See 65 FR 8053. 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit https://

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Faith Goddard, Multi-Air Pollutant 

Coordination Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

The telephone number is (404) 562– 

8757. Ms. Goddard can also be reached 

via electronic mail at goddard.faith@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Action 

On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement 

and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy 

Applicable to SIPs; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls 

To Amend Provisions Applying to 

Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,’’ 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘2015 SSM 

SIP Action.’’ See 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 

2015). The 2015 SSM SIP Action 

clarified, restated, and updated EPA’s 

interpretation that SSM exemption and 

affirmative defense SIP provisions are 

inconsistent with CAA requirements. 

The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that 

certain SIP provisions in 36 States, 

applicable in 45 statewide and local 

jurisdictions, including Forsyth County, 

North Carolina, were substantially 

inadequate to meet CAA requirements 

and issued a SIP call to those States to 

submit SIP revisions to address the 

inadequacies. EPA established an 18- 

month deadline by which the affected 

States had to submit such SIP revisions. 

States were required to submit 

corrective revisions to their SIPs in 

response to the SIP calls by November 

22, 2016. 

In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA 

determined that Forsyth County Air 

Quality Control Ordinance and 

Technical Code Subchapter 3D, Section 

.0500, Rule 3D .0535, Excess Emissions 

Reporting and Malfunctions, paragraphs 

(c) and (g) (also referred to herein as 

‘‘Rule 3D .0535(c) and (g)’’), are 

substantially inadequate to meet CAA 

requirements on the basis that they 

contain impermissible director’s 

discretion provisions. See 80 FR 33840, 

33964 (June 12, 2015). In the Forsyth 

County portion of the North Carolina 

SIP, Rule 3D .0535(c) and (g) provide 

exemptions for emissions exceeding 

otherwise applicable SIP emission 

limitations at the discretion of a local 

official during malfunctions at 

paragraph (c) and startup and shutdown 

at paragraph (g). The rationale 

underlying EPA’s determination that 

these Forsyth County provisions are 

substantially inadequate to meet CAA 

requirements is detailed in the 2015 

SSM SIP Action and the accompanying 

proposals. 

B. 2022 Findings of Failure To Submit 

On January 12, 2022, pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(1), EPA finalized 

‘‘Findings of Failure To Submit State 

Implementation Plan Revisions in 

Response to the 2015 Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Calls To 

Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction,’’ 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘2022 

Findings of Failure to Submit.’’ See 87 

FR 1680 (January 12, 2022). The 2022 

Findings of Failure to Submit found that 

twelve State and local agencies, 

including FCEAP, failed to submit 

timely corrective SIP revisions required 

by the 2015 SSM SIP Action. This 

action triggered certain CAA deadlines 

for EPA to impose sanctions if an 

affected agency did not submit a 

complete SIP revision addressing the 

outstanding deficiencies and to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) if EPA did not approve a 

required SIP submittal by February 11, 

2024. 

On November 28, 2022, in response to 

the 2015 SSM SIP Action and the 2022 

Findings of Failure to Submit, NCDAQ 

submitted on behalf of FCEAP a revision 

to the Forsyth County portion of the 

North Carolina SIP. In its submittal, 

Forsyth County requests that EPA revise 

the Forsyth County portion of the North 

Carolina SIP by removing the 

substantive text of Rule 3D .0535(c) and 

(g) and adding language clarifying that 

paragraphs (c) and (g) are not included 

in EPA’s SIP-approved version of Rule 

3D .0535 in the Forsyth County portion 

of the North Carolina SIP. Forsyth 

County also includes in the submittal 

minor and non-substantive 

administrative amendments to the 

remaining Rule 3D .0535 regulatory 

provisions, as revised since EPA’s last 

approval on February 17, 2000.1

C. Environ. Comm. Fl. Elec. Power v. 

EPA, 94 F.4th 77 (D.C. Cir. 2024) 

On March 1, 2024, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued a decision 

in Environmental Committee of the 

Florida Electric Power Coordinating 

Group, Inc., v. EPA, 94 F.4th 77 (D.C. 

Cir. 2024). The case was a consolidated 

set of petitions for review of the 2015 

SSM SIP Action. The court granted the 

petitions in part, vacating the SIP call 

with respect to SIP provisions that EPA 

identified as automatic exemptions, 

director’s discretion provisions, and 

affirmative defenses that are 

functionally exemptions; and denied the 

petitions as to other provisions that EPA 

identified as overbroad enforcement 

discretion provisions or affirmative 

defense provisions that would preclude 

or limit a court from imposing relief in 

the case of violations. Although the 

court vacated the SIP call as to director’s 

discretion provisions such as Rule 3D 

.0535(c) and (g), EPA is required, 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3), to 

approve Forsyth County’s submittal 

requesting removal of the substantive 

text of these provisions from the Forsyth 

County portion of the North Carolina 

SIP because the submittal meets all of 

the applicable CAA requirements. See 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3). The D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in Environmental Committee 

does not preclude State and/or local air 

jurisdictions from submitting SIP 

revisions requesting removal of certain 

provisions from their SIP where that 

removal makes the SIP more protective 

of air quality, as FCEAP did here. 

II. Analysis of the November 28, 2022, 

Submittal 

Forsyth County requests that EPA 

remove the substantive text of Rule 3D 

.0535(c) and (g) from the Forsyth County 

portion of the North Carolina SIP and 

add language clarifying that Rule 3D 

.0535(c) and (g) are not included in the 

Forsyth County portion of the North 

Carolina SIP. Removing the substantive 

text of Rule 3D .0535(c) and (g) from the 

SIP would mean that emission limits 

incorporated into the Forsyth County 

portion of the North Carolina SIP would 

apply at all times, including periods of 

SSM. If removed from the Forsyth 

County portion of the North Carolina 

SIP, the substantive text of Rule 3D 

.0535(c) and (g) will apply to Forsyth 

County in its exercise of enforcement 

authority for local-law purposes only. 

These provisions would remain 

enforceable as local-only provisions, 

and language would be added to clarify 

that Rule 3D .0535(c) and (g) are not 

included in the Forsyth County portion 

of the North Carolina SIP. Because the 

substantive text of Rule 3D .0535(c) and 

(g) would not be part of the Forsyth 

County portion of the North Carolina 

SIP, citizens and EPA could seek 

injunctive relief or civil penalties for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 74173 

2See 65 FR 8053. 3The November 28, 2022, SIP revision includes 

the following typographical error: in Rule 3D 

.0535(b), as shown on page 10 of 75 in the SIP 

submittal, a cross-reference to ‘‘Subchapter 3Q 

.0700’’ is revised to ‘‘Section 3D–0700.’’ The 

amendments to the state-effective version of Rule 

3D .0535(b), which start at page 6 of 75 in the SIP 

submittal, show the revised cross-reference 

correctly as ‘‘Section 3Q–0700’’ at page 7 of 75 in 

the SIP submittal. 

4Rule 3D .0535(f)(1) contains initial excess 

emissions occurrence notification requirements, 

and Rule 3D .0535(f)(3) contains written reporting 

requirements for documenting excess emissions as 

described in prefatory text at paragraph (f). 

excess emissions. Based on Forsyth 

County’s request to revise Rule 3D 

.0535(c) and (g) in the Forsyth County 

portion of the North Carolina SIP, EPA 

proposes to approve Forsyth County’s 

November 28, 2022, SIP revision 

because the requested revision is 

consistent with CAA requirements. 

Minor and non-substantive 

administrative amendments to Rule 3D 

.0535 have been adopted by Forsyth 

County since EPA’s last approval on 

February 17, 2000,2 resulting in an 

inconsistency between the federally 

approved SIP and local rules (i.e., a ‘‘SIP 

gap’’). Forsyth County’s November 28, 

2022, SIP revision includes minor 

changes to Rule 3D .0535(e) and (f) that 

revise malfunction abatement plan 

deadlines (at Rule 3D .0535(e)) and 

notification and source testing 

requirements (at Rule 3D .0535(f)), as 

well as non-substantive administrative 

changes to the remaining Rule 3D .0535 

regulatory provisions that update the 

formatting of rule references and make 

minor edits that are generally clarifying 

in nature.3 Regarding the nonsubstantive SIP revisions, EPA proposes 

to approve these administrative changes 

because the November 28, 2022, SIP 

revision is consistent with CAA 

requirements and does not alter the 

meaning of the regulations. 

Regarding Rule 3D .0535(e), Forsyth 

County revises malfunction abatement 

plan requirements by removing an 

obsolete sentence that reads, ‘‘The 

owner or operator of any electric utility 

boiler unit required to have a 

malfunction abatement plan shall 

submit a malfunction abatement plan to 

the Director within 60 days of the 

effective date of this Rule.’’ The existing 

subsequent sentence requires ‘‘any other 

source’’ required to have a malfunction 

abatement plan to submit that plan 

within six months of the Director’s 

requirement to do so. Forsyth County 

revises Rule 3D .0535(e) such that it 

now States that ‘‘any source’’ required 

to have a malfunction abatement plan 

must submit that plan within six 

months of the Director’s requirement to 

do so. Because Rule 3D .0535(d) still 

requires submission of malfunction 

abatement plans within 60 days for 

sources other than electric utility 

boilers, only the submission timeframe 

for electric utility boilers has increased, 

and EPA anticipates no associated 

impact on air quality. 

Forsyth County also revises the 

timeframe within which amendments 

can be submitted to remedy malfunction 

abatement plan deficiencies. The 

revised provision states that, if a 

malfunction abatement plan does not 

carry out objectives described in Rule 

3D .0535(d) and is therefore 

disapproved, an amendment that 

corrects the deficiencies identified must 

be submitted ‘‘within 30 days of receipt 

of the Director’s notification of 

disapproval,’’ whereas the existing 

provision requires a satisfactory 

amendment to be submitted ‘‘within a 

time prescribed by the Director.’’ EPA 

proposes to approve Forsyth County’s 

changes to Rule 3D .0535(e) concerning 

malfunction abatement plan 

requirements because the November 28, 

2022, SIP revision is consistent with 

CAA requirements and removes a 

sentence requiring the submission of an 

electric utility boiler unit malfunction 

abatement plan by an expired deadline 

and replaces an undefined timeframe for 

correcting the malfunction abatement 

plan to be prescribed by a local official 

with a definite timeframe of thirty days. 

Regarding the revised timeframe within 

which amendments can be submitted to 

remedy malfunction abatement plan 

deficiencies, EPA finds the revised 

provision to be more stringent. 

Regarding Rule 3D .0535(f), Forsyth 

County updates a corrective measures 

notification requirement. The revised 

provision states that, ‘‘after’’ measures 

correcting excess emissions lasting more 

than four hours resulting from ‘‘a 

malfunction, a breakdown of process or 

control equipment or any other 

abnormal conditions’’ have been 

accomplished, the source owner or 

operator must notify a local official, 

whereas the existing provision requires 

the owner or operator to notify a local 

official ‘‘immediately when . . . 

corrective measures have been 

accomplished.’’ Rule 3D .0535(f)’s 

initial notification requirements at (f)(1) 

remain unchanged, as do its ultimate 

reporting requirements at (f)(3).4 EPA 

proposes to approve Forsyth County’s 

change to Rule 3D .0535(f) concerning 

corrective measures notification 

requirements because EPA anticipates 

no associated impact on air quality and 

the revision is consistent with CAA 

requirements; the precise timing of the 

notification of the accomplishment of a 

particular corrective measure to a local 

official need not be exactly 

simultaneous with the accomplishment 

of such measure. EPA is not proposing 

at this time to act on a revised crossreference to source testing requirements 

in the last sentence of Rule 3D .0535(f). 

The cross-referenced section, as revised, 

is not approved into the Forsyth County 

portion of the North Carolina SIP. 

III. Proposed Action 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

EPA is proposing to approve Forsyth 

County’s November 28, 2022, SIP 

submission requesting changes to 

Forsyth County Air Quality Control 

Ordinance and Technical Code 

Subchapter 3D, Section .0500, Rule 3D 

.0535, Excess Emissions Reporting and 

Malfunctions, except for the change to 

the cross-referenced rule in Rule 3D 

.0535(f), into the Forsyth County portion 

of the North Carolina SIP. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

substantive text of Rule 3D .0535(c) and 

(g) from the Forsyth County portion of 

the North Carolina SIP, to add 

statements clarifying that Rule 3D 

.0535(c) and (g) are not included in the 

Forsyth County portion of the North 

Carolina SIP, and to otherwise approve 

the revised version of Rule 3D .0535 

into the Forsyth County portion of the 

North Carolina SIP, except for the 

revised cross-reference in the last 

sentence of Rule 3D .0535(f), which EPA 

is not proposing to act on at this time. 

EPA is proposing approval of the SIP 

revision because the Agency has 

determined that it is consistent with the 

requirements for SIP provisions under 

the CAA. EPA is not reopening the 2015 

SSM SIP Action nor the 2022 Findings 

of Failure to Submit and is taking 

comment only on whether the SIP 

revision is consistent with CAA 

requirements. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as 

discussed in sections I through III of this 

preamble, EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference Forsyth County 

Air Quality Control Ordinance and 

Technical Code Subchapter 3D, Section 

.0500, Rule 3D .0535, Excess Emissions 

Reporting and Malfunctions, locally 

effective July 14, 2022, with the 

following exceptions: EPA is not 

proposing to incorporate the last 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74174 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

5The July 14, 2022, local effective version of the 

last sentence of Rule 3D .0535(f) contains a change 

that incorporates a reference to regulations not 

approved into the SIP. If EPA takes final action to 

approve the November 28, 2022, SIP revision, the 

Agency will update the SIP table at 40 CFR 

52.1770(c) to reflect the retention of the September 

14, 1998, version of the aforementioned sentence. 

6 If EPA takes final action to approve the 

November 28, 2022, SIP revision, the SIP-approved 

version of Rule 3D .0535(c) will read, ‘‘(Paragraph 

(c) is not included in Forsyth County’s portion of 

the State Implementation Plan.),’’ and the SIPapproved version of .0535(g) will read, ‘‘(Paragraph 

(g) is not included in Forsyth County’s portion of 

the State Implementation Plan.).’’ The Agency 

would update the SIP table at 40 CFR 52.1770(c) to 

reflect this fact. 

sentence of Rule 3D .0535(f),5 and in 

Rule 3D .0535(c) and (g), is proposing to 

incorporate only the statements that 

each paragraph ‘‘is not included in 

Forsyth County’s portion of the State 

Implementation Plan.’’ 6 EPA has made 

and will continue to make these 

materials generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 4 office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed 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 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a State program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a 

Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The FCEAP did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this proposed 

action. Due to the nature of the 

proposed action being taken here, this 

proposed action is expected to have a 

neutral to positive impact on the air 

quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this proposed action, and there 

is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for communities with EJ 

concerns. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 6, 2024. 

Jeaneanne Gettle, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20666 Filed 9–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 121 

RIN 0937–AA13 

Organ Procurement and 

Transplantation: Implementation of the 

HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Health (OASH) and Health 

Resources and Services Administration 

(HRSA), Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) proposes to 

amend the regulations implementing the 

National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, 

as amended (NOTA), to remove clinical 

research and institutional review board 

(IRB) requirements (‘‘research and IRB 

requirements’’) for transplantation of 

kidney and livers from donors with 

human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) 

to recipients with HIV. As allowed by 

the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) 

Act, the Secretary of HHS proposes to 

determine that participation in such 

clinical research should no longer be a 

requirement for transplantation of HIV 

positive kidneys and livers from donors 

with HIV to recipients with HIV. This 

proposed rule serves as publication of 

the Secretary’s proposed determination 

and proposes to amend the regulations 

to reflect this determination. Consistent 

with NOTA and current regulatory 

requirements, the Secretary’s proposed 

determination and the proposed 

corresponding regulatory revision, if 

finalized, will necessitate that the Organ 

Procurement and Transplantation 

Network (OPTN) adopt and use 

standards of quality concerning kidneys 

and livers from donors with HIV, as 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1