82560 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

certain sections of title 13 of the 

California Code of Regulations that 

establish standards and other 

requirements relating to the control of 

emissions of greenhouse gases from new 

passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and 

medium-duty vehicles and the related 

test procedures, as described in section 

II of this preamble. The EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

materials available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX 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 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

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 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 proposes to approve 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 Act. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed 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, 

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. The EPA defines EJ as 

‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income 

with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies.’’ The EPA further defines the 

term fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no 

group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

CARB did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submission; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis 

and did not consider EJ in this 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 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, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: October 2, 2024. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23270 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2021–0480; FRL–10676– 

02–R6] 

Air Plan Approval; Texas; New Source 

Review Updates for Project Emissions 

Accounting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is supplementing a 

proposed approval published on March 

6, 2023 (‘‘March 2023 proposal’’), for 

revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that updates 

the Texas Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) permitting 

programs to incorporate Federal New 

Source Review (NSR) regulations for 

Project Emissions Accounting (PEA). 

This proposal supplements the March 

2023 proposal with respect to the EPA’s 

evaluation of the Texas SIP submittal 

and the anti-backsliding requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 110(l) 

and 193. The EPA is providing an 

opportunity for public comment on this 

supplemental proposal. The EPA is not 

reopening for comment the March 2023 

proposal. Comments received on the 

March 2023 proposal and this 

supplemental proposal will be 

addressed in a final rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 12, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2021–0480 at https://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

wiley.adina@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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82561 

1Ky. Res. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986, 991 

(6th Cir. 2006); see also Indiana v. EPA, 796 F.3d 

803, 806 (7th Cir. 2015); Ala. Env’t Council v. EPA, 

711 F.3d 1277, 1292–93 (11th Cir. 2013); GalvestonHouston Ass’n for Smog Prevention v. EPA, 289 F. 

App’x 745, 754 (5th Cir. 2008). 2Bryan A. Garner, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal 

Usage 570 (3d ed. 2011); see also MerriamWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary 652 (11th ed. 2005) 

(‘‘to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes’’); 

Webster’s New World Dictionary Third College 

Edition 704 (1988) (defining ‘‘interfere with’’ as ‘‘to 

hinder’’). 

3Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 75 F.4th 

174, 181 (3rd Cir. 2023). 

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 Adina Wiley, 214–665–2115, 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. For the full EPA 

public comment policy, information 

about CBI or multimedia submissions, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit https:// 

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

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: 

Adina Wiley, EPA Region 6 Office, Air 

Permits Section, 214–665–2115, 

wiley.adina@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. 

I. Background 

On July 9, 2021, the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) submitted to the EPA revisions 

to the Texas SIP that update the Texas 

PSD and NNSR programs to allow for 

PEA consistent with the EPA’s 

November 24, 2020, final rule at 85 FR 

74890. The July 9, 2021, submittal also 

included the repeal of obsolete 

provisions from the Texas permitting 

program; the EPA addressed the repeal 

of obsolete provisions in a separate final 

action on August 24, 2023, at 88 FR 

57882. 

In our March 2023 proposal (88 FR 

13752), we provided information on 

how the Texas SIP revision was 

evaluated and found to be consistent 

with the Federal NSR program 

requirements for PEA. Comments on our 

March 2023 proposal were due by April 

5, 2023. We received relevant adverse 

comments on our proposal that 

included, among other comments, that 

our proposal did not provide an air 

quality analysis demonstrating that the 

Texas SIP revision will not violate the 

anti-backsliding requirements of section 

110(l) and section 193 of the CAA. 

Thus, we are providing our evaluation 

of the Texas SIP revision under CAA 

sections 110(l) and 193 in this 

supplemental proposal action. All 

comments received on our March 2023 

proposal and this supplemental 

proposal will be addressed in the final 

action. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

Section 110(l) of the CAA requires 

that (1) each revision to a SIP must be 

adopted by the State after reasonable 

notice and public hearing, and (2) the 

EPA cannot approve a plan revision ‘‘if 

the revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act.’’ 

The July 9, 2021, Texas SIP submittal 

included evidence that the public was 

provided notice of the proposed SIP 

revisions in three newspapers on 

December 18, 2020: Austin AmericanStatesman, Dallas Morning News, and 

Houston Chronicle. The TCEQ 

published the proposed revisions and 

the notice of public hearing in the Texas 

Register on January 1, 2021, at 46 

TexReg 123 and 46 TexReg 219, 

respectively. The EPA finds that the 

TCEQ submitted the July 9, 2021, SIP 

revision after reasonable notice and 

public hearing. The submittal therefore 

satisfies the first requirement of CAA 

section 110(l). 

As to the second requirement of CAA 

section 110(l), for over 15 years, the EPA 

has interpreted section 110(l) as 

permitting approval of a SIP revision so 

long as ‘‘emissions in the air are not 

increased,’’ thereby preserving ‘‘status 

quo air quality.’’ 1 According to the 

plain meaning of the word ‘‘interfere,’’ 

a SIP revision satisfies section 110(l) if 

it does not hamper, frustrate, hinder, or 

impede any applicable CAA 

requirements.2 EPA’s 110(l) analysis is 

not a one-size-fits all provision and the 

variables that must be analyzed depend 

on the particular interference the SIP 

revision poses.3 To demonstrate 

noninterference, a state may either: (1) 

offset any expected increases with 

equivalent or greater emissions 

reductions, thereby maintaining status 

quo air quality; or (2) submit an air 

quality analysis showing that the SIP 

revision will not interfere with 

applicable requirements. 

The July 9, 2021, Texas SIP submittal 

argued that a project that is not 

permitted through major NSR (PSD and/ 

or NNSR) would still be permitted 

through the Texas minor NSR program. 

The EPA evaluated whether the existing 

Texas minor NSR program requirements 

are an acceptable substitute measure in 

the event a modification uses PEA and 

is no longer subject to the requirements 

of the Texas PSD and NNSR programs. 

Our evaluation presented below 

analyzes whether the Texas minor NSR 

program requirements preserve the air 

quality status quo and benefits of the 

Texas NSR permit program. 

In the July 9, 2021, SIP submittal, the 

TCEQ identified the possibility that a 

portion of projects that would otherwise 

have been subject to the Texas PSD and 

NNSR requirements under 30 TAC 

chapter 116, may instead use PEA to 

proceed as a minor NSR permitting 

action under the SIP-approved Texas 

minor NSR requirements. The TCEQ 

stated in the final preamble ‘‘. . . the 

commission emphasizes that the 

adopted changes are not expected to 

significantly affect human health or 

ambient air quality, due to the 

requirements for minor NSR in Texas.’’ 

See 46 TexReg 3925, June 25, 2021. The 

July 9, 2021, SIP submittal does not 

relieve the owner/operator of a source 

from the obligation to obtain a 

preconstruction permit. The owner or 

operator would still be responsible for 

obtaining a valid permit through the 

Texas minor NSR program. 

The purpose of the NSR permitting 

program (PSD, NNSR, and minor NSR) 

is to protect human health and the 

environment while providing for 

industrial growth. Preconstruction 

permitting programs, including minor 

NSR, establish legally and practicably 

enforceable emission limits for the 

subject facilities. The Texas SIP 

includes several mechanisms for 

evaluating and authorizing minor NSR 

actions. Each mechanism has been 

separately evaluated and approved by 

the EPA as consistent with minor NSR 

requirements and protective of human 

health and the environment to satisfy 

the requirements at 40 CFR 51.160 

through 51.164. Existing PSD or NNSR 

permitted facilities in Texas may use 

PEA to determine, consistent with the 

Federal regulations, that a project at an 

existing major stationary source does 

not qualify as a major modification and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
82562 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

4The Texas Permits by Rule (PBR) program was 

initially SIP-approved on November 1, 2003. See 68 

FR 64548. The EPA approved revisions to the Texas 

PBR program on November 10, 2014. See 79 FR 

66626. 

5The Texas Standard Permit Program was 

initially SIP-approved on November 14, 2003. See 

68 FR 64543. The EPA has approved several 

revisions to the Standard Permit program since our 

initial program approval. The most recent EPA 

action was taken on February 13, 2020. See 85 FR 

8185. 

6See 85 FR 75890, 74896. 7See 85 FR 74890, 74896. 8See the Qualitative Environmental Impacts 

Analysis of the Final Project Emissions Accounting 

Rule presented on page 122 of ‘‘EPA’s Response to 

Comments Document on Proposed Rule: 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR): Project 

Emissions Accounting’’—84 FR 39244, August 9, 

2019’’ available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0381-0013. 

thus is not subject to the requirements 

for major PSD modifications at 30 TAC 

section 116.160 or major NNSR 

modifications at 30 TAC section 116.150 

or 116.151. Modifications to facilities in 

Texas that will be permitted via minor 

NSR mechanisms because of the 

application of PEA will still be 

protective of human health and the 

environment because these 

modifications are permitted via SIPapproved minor NSR mechanisms that 

establish legally and practicably 

enforceable emission limits. We briefly 

describe each of the Texas SIP-approved 

minor NSR mechanisms below. 

The Texas SIP at 30 TAC section 

116.110(b) requires that modifications to 

existing permitted facilities be 

addressed through an amendment to an 

existing permit. Permit amendments are 

SIP-approved at 30 TAC section 

116.116(b). See 85 FR 64968, October 

14, 2020. Permit amendments are used 

if the modification results in (1) a 

change in the method of control of 

emissions, (2) a change in the character 

of the emissions, or (3) an increase in 

the emission rate of any air 

contaminant. Applications for permit 

amendments are subject to the SIPapproved public notice provisions at 30 

TAC chapter 39 and must satisfy the 

general application requirements at 30 

TAC section 116.111, including the 

requirement at 30 TAC section 

116.111(a)(2)(C) for the application of 

Texas best available control technology 

(BACT) to determine the applicable 

control technology requirements. Texas 

explains in the final preamble that 

‘‘Sources undergoing construction or 

modification which are not subject to 

PSD best available control technology 

(BACT) or lowest achievable emission 

rate (LAER) under major NSR 

requirements must still comply with 

Texas’ BACT requirements in 

§ 116.111(a)(2)(C). Every permit 

amendment, including non-major 

permit amendments, undergoes a review 

process to evaluate the impact of the 

project on human health and evaluate 

compliance with ambient air quality 

standards. Even non-major permitting 

projects are evaluated to ensure that 

they do not cause or contribute to an 

exceedance of the NAAQS and meet any 

applicable state property line standards. 

This evaluation may consist of both air 

dispersion modeling predictions and 

ambient monitoring data.’’ See 46 

TexReg 3925 and 3926, June 25, 2021. 

The Texas SIP at 30 TAC section 

116.110(d) provides that a Permit by 

Rule (PBR) can be used in lieu of a 

permit amendment. The Texas PBR 

program is SIP-approved at 30 TAC 

chapter 106.4 The Texas PBR program is 

an alternative process for approving the 

construction of new and modified 

facilities or changes within facilities. 

Pursuant to 30 TAC sections 106.1 

and106.2, the TCEQ develops a PBR 

applicable to certain types of facilities 

or changes within facilities the TCEQ 

has determined will not make a 

significant contribution of air 

contaminants. The PBR must satisfy the 

general requirements at 30 TAC section 

106.4, including establishing 

enforceable limits on actual emissions, 

and the TCEQ provides for public notice 

and comment of the PBR through 30 

TAC chapter 39. 

The Texas SIP at 30 TAC section 

116.615(3) provides that standard 

permits can be used in lieu of permit 

amendments. The Texas Standard 

Permit program is SIP-approved at 30 

TAC chapter 116, subchapter F, and 

provides a streamlined, alternative 

mechanism to approve the construction 

of certain new and modified sources 

within categories which contain 

numerous similar sources where the 

TCEQ has adopted a standard permit.5

Individual standard permits are 

developed by the TCEQ using a 30-day 

public notice and comment process as 

provided in 30 TAC section 116.603. 

Standard permits generally require the 

application of BACT and will also 

contain registration of emission 

requirements to limit a source’s 

potential to emit and sufficient 

recordkeeping requirements to 

demonstrate compliance. Standard 

permits cannot be used by new major 

stationary sources or major 

modifications that are subject to the 

requirements of PSD or NNSR 

permitting. 

The EPA finds that the argument 

presented by the State—specifically that 

a project that would not result in a 

significant emissions increase when 

considering the overall effect of the 

change on emissions, i.e., considering 

both increases and decreases in 

emissions that result from the project as 

provided for with PEA—is an acceptable 

use of the substitute measure approach 

under section 110(l). The Texas minor 

NSR permitting program functions as a 

backstop to preserve the status quo air 

quality and protect human health and 

the environment in the event a 

modification is determined to be nonmajor in accordance with the revised 

regulations. Each of the available minor 

NSR options for permitting non-major 

modifications have been previously 

reviewed and approved by the EPA as 

protective of human health and the 

environment. Each minor NSR option 

provides for public comment on the 

permit and establishes enforceable 

emission limitations that have been 

demonstrated as protective of air 

quality. Additionally, the reliance on 

minor NSR in the event a project uses 

PEA is consistent with the intent 

outlined in the EPA’s final rule for PEA 

where we explain that projects that may 

not be subject to major NSR 

modification requirements may still be 

subject to applicable minor NSR 

program permitting requirements.6 The 

application of PEA in Texas is also 

likely to incentivize energy efficiency 

and/or other environmentally beneficial 

projects that may have been foregone 

because of the perceived complexity of 

major NSR permitting requirements.7 8

The EPA therefore proposes to find that 

the July 9, 2021, Texas SIP submittal 

satisfies the second requirement of CAA 

section 110(l) because the Texas SIPapproved minor NSR program will 

preserve the air quality status quo and 

benefits of the Texas SIP-approved NSR 

program. 

Section 193 of the CAA, the ‘‘General 

Savings Clause’’, provides that control 

measures in effect or required to be 

adopted in nonattainment areas by an 

order, settlement agreement, or plan in 

effect before the 1990 CAA amendments 

in nonattainment areas may not be 

removed or modified absent a SIP 

revision that ensures equivalent or 

greater emissions reductions. 

The July 9, 2021, Texas SIP revision 

ensures that modifications that are not 

subject to the requirements of major 

NNSR permitting because of the 

application of PEA must still be 

permitted through the SIP-approved 

minor NSR program. Each of these 

minor NSR mechanisms has been 

separately evaluated and approved as 

discussed above. The EPA therefore 

proposes to find that the July 9, 2021, 

Texas SIP submittal satisfies the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82563 

requirements of CAA section 193 

because the modification will still be 

subject to SIP-approved NSR program 

requirements, including public notice 

and the establishment of enforceable 

emission limits that have been 

demonstrated as protective of air 

quality. 

III. Supplemental Proposed Action 

The EPA is supplementing our March 

2023 proposal addressing revisions to 

the Texas SIP to update the Texas PSD 

and NNSR permitting programs to 

provide for PEA consistent with Federal 

NSR requirements. In this supplemental 

proposal, we are proposing to approve 

the Texas SIP revisions submitted July 

9, 2021, as consistent with the 

requirements of CAA sections 110(l) and 

193. Our analysis found that the 

submitted revisions are consistent with 

the CAA and the EPA’s regulations, 

policy and guidance for permitting SIP 

requirements. The EPA is proposing 

approval of the following revisions 

adopted on June 9, 2021, effective on 

July 1, 2021, submitted to the EPA on 

July 9, 2021: 

• Revisions to 30 TAC section 

116.12—Nonattainment and Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration Review 

Definitions, 

• Revisions to 30 TAC section 

116.150—New Major Source or Major 

Modification in Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas, 

• Revisions to 30 TAC section 

116.151—New Major Source or Major 

Modification in Nonattainment Area 

Other than Ozone, and 

• Revisions to 30 TAC section 

116.160—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. 

The EPA is providing an opportunity 

for public comment on this 

supplemental proposal. However, we 

are not reopening for comment our 

March 2023 proposal. The EPA will 

address all comments received on our 

March 2023 proposal and on this 

supplemental proposal in our final 

action. 

IV. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

Please see the March 6, 2023, 

proposal at 88 FR 13752, 13754. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this action, we are proposing to 

include in a final rule regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

revisions to the Texas regulations as 

described in section III of this preamble, 

Supplemental Proposed Action. We 

have made, and will continue to make, 

these documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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 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 Clean Air Act. 

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. The EPA defines EJ as 

‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income 

with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies.’’ The EPA further defines the 

term fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no 

group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

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. 

The EPA performed an EJ analysis, as is 

described above 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. In addition, there is no 

information in the record upon which 

this decision is based inconsistent with 

the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 

achieving EJ for communities with EJ 

concerns. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed 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). 

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 27, 2024. 

Earthea Nance, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23282 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1