88690 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 because it is an error 

correction taken under section 110(k)(6) 

of the CAA and does not directly or 

disproportionately affect children. 

• 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 action 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 

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. 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.’’ 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 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. Although not a basis for that 

action, the EPA performed an EJ 

analysis for informational purposes only 

in its June 13, 2023, proposed 

disapproval of Louisiana’s SIP revision. 

See 88 FR 38448, 38453–38455 (June 13, 

2023) and 88 FR 85112, 85123–85124 

(December 7, 2023) for more 

information. The EPA did not perform 

an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ 

in this action as the EPA views this 

action as a necessary procedural step 

following the D.C. Circuit decision and 

vacatur of portions of the 2015 SIP call. 

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 environmental justice for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Approval and promulgation 

of implementation plans, 

Intergovernmental relations, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 31, 2024. 

Earthea Nance, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25816 Filed 11–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2024–0349; FRL–12130– 

01–R9] 

Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Maricopa 

County Air Quality Department 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department (MCAQD or 

‘‘County’’) portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) from loading 

of organic liquids and gasoline. We are 

proposing action on local rules to 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’). We 

are also proposing to disapprove the 

MCAQD’s reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) demonstration for 

the source categories associated with 

these rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone 

nonattainment area. We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 9, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2024–0349 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.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 the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with a 

disability who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donnique Sherman, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 947–4129; email 

at sherman.donnique@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88691 

1On November 12, 2019 (84 FR 60920), the EPA 

issued a determination that the Phoenix-Mesa 

ozone nonattainment area attained the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

by the Moderate area attainment date of July 20, 

2018. That determination did not constitute a 

redesignation of the area to attainment for the 2008 

ozone standard. The designation status of the 

Phoenix-Mesa area will remain Moderate 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS until 

such time as the EPA determines that the area meets 

Clean Air Act requirements for redesignation to 

attainment. 

2 ‘‘Analysis of Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) State 

Implementation Plan (RACT SIP)’’ submitted June 

22, 2017. 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Were there any newly identified 

deficiencies with the December 3, 2020, 

submitted rules? 

D. The EPA’s Recommendations To 

Further Improve the Rules 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal with the dates that they 

were adopted by the MCAQD and 

submitted to the EPA by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ or ‘‘State’’). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Revised Submitted 

MCAQD ................................... 352 Gasoline Cargo Tank Testing and Use ................................. 11/18/2020 12/03/2020 

MCAQD ................................... 353 Storage and Loading of Gasoline at a Gasoline Dispensing 

Facility (GDF).

11/18/2020 12/03/2020 

On June 3, 2021, the SIP submittal 

containing the documents listed in 

Table 1 was deemed complete by 

operation of law. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

We conditionally approved earlier 

versions of Rule 352 and Rule 353 into 

the SIP on February 26, 2020 (85 FR 

10986), based on a commitment made 

by the MCAQD to remedy the 

deficiencies identified in that action. In 

order to fulfill that commitment, the 

MCAQD adopted revisions to the SIPapproved versions of these rules on 

November 18, 2020, and ADEQ 

submitted them to the EPA on December 

3, 2020. The February 26, 2020 

conditional approval, and an 

explanation of how the SIP submittal 

proposed for approval here addresses 

the deficiencies identified in the 

conditional approval, are discussed in 

more detail below. If we finalize this 

proposal for a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the November 18, 

2020 versions of these rules, then these 

versions will replace the conditionally 

approved versions of these rules in the 

SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

Emissions of VOC contribute to the 

formation of ground-level ozone which 

harms human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires states to submit plans that 

provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. In addition, CAA section 

182(b)(2) requires that SIPs for ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

‘‘Moderate’’ or higher implement RACT 

for sources covered by a control 

techniques guidelines (CTG) document. 

The MCAQD regulates a portion of the 

Phoenix-Mesa area designated as 

nonattainment for ozone and classified 

as Moderate nonattainment for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS.1 Therefore, the MCAQD 

is required to submit SIP revisions that 

implement RACT-level controls for all 

sources covered by a CTG. The MCAQD 

submitted Rule 352 and Rule 353 to 

establish RACT-level controls for VOC 

emissions from sources covered by the 

CTGs listed in Table 2. Rule 352 limits 

VOC emissions from gasoline cargo 

tanks that are used to load or unload 

gasoline within Maricopa County. Rule 

353 limits VOC emissions from storage 

and loading of gasoline at gasoline 

dispensing facilities (GDFs). 

TABLE 2—RULES AND ASSOCIATED CTGS

Rule No. Associated CTGs 

Rule 352 .......................................... Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems 

(EPA–450/2–78–051). 

Rule 353 .......................................... Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems—Gasoline Service Stations (EPA–450/R–75–102). 

Section III.D of the preamble to the 

EPA’s final rule to implement the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, 

March 6, 2015) discusses RACT 

requirements. It states in part that RACT 

SIPs must contain adopted RACT 

regulations, certifications where 

appropriate that existing provisions are 

RACT, and/or negative declarations that 

there are no sources in the 

nonattainment areas subject to a specific 

CTG. The County’s RACT SIP 2 provides 

MCAQD’s analysis of its compliance 

with the CAA section 182 RACT 

requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. On February 26, 2020, the EPA 

conditionally approved MCAQD Rule 

352, Rule 353, and the County’s RACT 

demonstration for the CTGs associated 

with these rules, into the Arizona SIP. 

The rules contained deficiencies which 

precluded full SIP approval and were 

conditionally approved based on a 

commitment by the MCAQD and the 

ADEQ to provide, within one year, a SIP 

submission that would address those 

deficiencies. The MCAQD subsequently 

revised these rules to address the 

identified deficiencies and the ADEQ 

submitted the revised rules on 

December 3, 2020. The EPA’s technical 

support document (TSD) has more 

information about these rules. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88692 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

3See 40 CFR 63.11126 and Table 3 to Subpart 

CCCCCC. For example, Subpart CCCCCC requires 

annual reporting related to malfunctions 

(malfunction of process equipment and air 

pollution control equipment), requires all 

performance tests reports to be submitted, and 

requires advanced notification of performance tests. 

4See 40 CFR part 63.11111(g). 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? 

Rules in the SIP must be enforceable 

(see CAA section 110(a)(2)) and must 

not interfere with applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or other 

CAA requirements (see CAA section 

110(l)). In addition, because these rules 

were submitted to satisfy the RACT 

requirement for sources covered by the 

CTGs listed in Table 2, these rules must 

establish RACT level controls for such 

sources. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

the EPA used to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation, and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank 

Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems,’’ 

EPA–450/2–78–051, December 1978. 

5. ‘‘Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor 

Control Systems-Gasoline Service 

Stations,’’ EPA–450/R–75–102, 

November 1975. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

The EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the State met its commitment and 

that these revised rules have corrected 

the deficiencies previously identified in 

the earlier versions of the rules that 

were conditionally approved into the 

SIP. The TSD has more information on 

our evaluation, including descriptions 

of the individual deficiencies and the 

way that each was addressed in the 

current submitted version of the rules. 

As described in the TSD, the 

submitted rules strengthen the SIP and 

generally establish RACT level controls. 

However, as discussed in the 

subsequent section, EPA is proposing to 

conclude that the submitted rules 

contain newly identified deficiencies 

that prevent full approval of the rules. 

C. Were there any newly identified 

deficiencies with the December 3, 2020, 

submitted rules? 

EPA is proposing to conclude that the 

following provisions in Rule 352 do not 

satisfy the requirements of section 110 

and part D of title I of the Act and 

therefore prevent full approval of the 

SIP revision. 

1. In addition to the annual 

certification test required by Section 

301.1, Sections 502 and 503 of Rule 352 

outline ongoing monitoring tests to 

perform to detect potential leaks. 

However, the rule does not identify any 

enforceable requirements to monitor 

using these tests on a periodic basis or 

any recordkeeping and reporting 

associated with this requirement. EPA is 

proposing to find that this undermines 

the enforceability of the rule, constitutes 

a SIP deficiency, and is inconsistent 

with the requirements of CAA Section 

110. 

2. Section 103.3(a) requires that an 

‘‘owner or operator of a gasoline cargo 

tank provides documentation from the 

gasoline cargo tank testing company to 

the Control Officer that certifies that the 

gasoline cargo tank was tested and 

verified vapor tight using test methods 

at least as stringent as those in Section 

501.1 (Maricopa County Vapor 

Tightness Test).’’ This provision allows 

the Control Officer authority to approve 

another test method, and without 

further specificity regarding how this 

authority will be exercised, could 

functionally allow for a revision of the 

SIP without complying with the process 

for SIP revisions required by the CAA. 

As a result, EPA is proposing to 

determine that this undermines the 

enforceability of the submission, 

constitutes a SIP deficiency, and is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

CAA Section 110. 

The EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the following provisions in Rule 

353 do not satisfy the requirements of 

section 110 and part D of title I of the 

Act and prevent full approval of the SIP 

revision. 

1. Rule 353 requires that control 

equipment or spill containment 

equipment at a stationary GDF or on a 

gasoline cargo tank be leak free and 

vapor tight, requiring weekly 

inspections. Rule 353 generally requires 

a facility to determine if there is a 

‘‘potential vapor leak’’ prior to being 

required to conduct a more stringent 

vapor tightness determination. Section 

501 of Rule 353 allows for four different 

options to identify potential vapor leaks. 

Section 501.1 allows for the ‘‘use of 

sight, sound, or smell’’ as an acceptable 

method for identifying potential vapor 

leaks. Although using sight, sound, or 

smell can play a role in identifying 

potential vapor leaks, allowing for that 

to potentially be the only method used 

could functionally allow for potential 

leak identification to be left solely left 

to the operator’s discretion and sensory 

inputs. Therefore, without a provision 

to periodically utilize methods beyond 

sight, sound, or smell, EPA is proposing 

to determine that this provision 

undermines the enforceability of the 

rule’s requirement for vapor tight 

compliance. 

2. Section 500 of Rule 353 contains 

ongoing monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements but does not specifically 

contain any requirements to report 

compliance information. However, 

reporting requirements are contained 

within Section 301 of the rule because 

it incorporates the applicable 

requirements from the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline 

Dispensing Facilities at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC (‘‘Subpart CCCCCC’’), 

which includes reporting requirements.3

However, Subpart CCCCCC is not 

applicable to the loading of aviation 

gasoline into storage tanks at airports, 

and the subsequent transfer of aviation 

gasoline within the airport.4 Rule 353 

does apply to loading of aviation 

gasoline at airports, but does not 

elsewhere require periodic reporting for 

these facilities. Given this framework, 

EPA is proposing to find that Rule 353 

has a reporting gap, because there is no 

periodic compliance reporting required 

for loading of aviation gasoline at 

airports. Due to the lack of adequate 

reporting requirements (or some 

alternative means of ensuring 

enforceability) during loading of 

aviation gasoline into storage tanks, EPA 

is proposing to find that this provision 

undermines the enforceability of the 

rule’s requirement for vapor tight 

compliance, constitutes a SIP 

deficiency, and is inconsistent with the 

requirements of CAA Section 110. 

D. The EPA’s Recommendations To 

Further Improve the Rules 

The TSDs include recommendations 

for the next time the MCAQD modifies 

these rules. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88693 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

The EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of the 

submitted rules. The EPA is proposing 

a limited approval because the EPA’s 

analysis demonstrates that Rule 352 and 

Rule 353 would strengthen the SIP. The 

rules generally establish RACT level 

controls, and the MCAQD has fixed the 

deficiencies that were previously 

identified with the rules in the February 

26, 2020, conditional approval. The EPA 

is proposing a simultaneous limited 

disapproval for Rule 352 and Rule 353 

based on the enforceability issues 

identified in section II.C. of this notice 

and described in detail in their 

respective TSDs. 

In addition, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is 

proposing a disapproval of the RACT 

demonstrations for the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for the sources covered by the 

CTGs associated with these rules, 

because the deficiencies for certain 

source categories as identified in the 

proposed limited disapproval preclude 

the EPA from proposing to approve this 

RACT demonstration as a whole. The 

EPA is also proposing to find that the 

State has met its commitment under the 

previous conditional approval of Rules 

352 and 353 and the associated CTG 

source categories. If we finalize this 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval as proposed, we would 

replace the conditionally approved 

versions of the rules with the newly 

submitted versions in the SIP, and also 

remove the text associated with the 

conditional approval from 40 CFR 

52.119(c)(1). We will accept comments 

from the public on this proposal until 

December 9, 2024. If finalized, this 

action would incorporate the submitted 

rules into the SIP, including those 

provisions identified as deficient. This 

approval is limited because the EPA is 

simultaneously proposing a limited 

disapproval. If we finalize this 

disapproval as proposed, CAA section 

110(c) would require the EPA to 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan within 24 months unless we 

approve subsequent SIP revisions that 

correct the deficiencies identified in our 

final action. 

In addition, final disapproval would 

trigger the offset sanction in CAA 

section 179(b)(2) 18 months after the 

effective date of a final disapproval, and 

the highway funding sanction in CAA 

section 179(b)(1) six months after the 

offset sanction is imposed. A sanction 

would not be imposed if the EPA 

determines that a subsequent SIP 

submission corrects the deficiencies 

identified in our final action before the 

applicable deadline. The EPA intends to 

work with MCAQD to correct the 

deficiencies in a timely manner. 

Note that the submitted rules have 

been adopted by MCAQD, and the 

EPA’s final limited disapproval would 

not prevent the State from enforcing 

them. The limited disapproval also 

would not prevent any portion of the 

rules from being incorporated by 

reference into the federally enforceable 

SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA 

memo found at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2015-07/ 

documents/procsip.pdf. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the 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, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

MCAQD Rule 352, ‘‘Gasoline Cargo 

Tank Testing and Use,’’ revised on 

November 18, 2020, which regulates 

VOC emissions during loading and 

unloading of gasoline to any gasoline 

cargo tank within Maricopa County. The 

EPA is also proposing to incorporate by 

reference MCAQD Rule 353, ‘‘Storage 

and Loading of Gasoline at a Gasoline 

Dispensing Facility,’’ revised on 

November 18, 2020, which regulates 

VOC emissions during storage and 

loading of gasoline at a gasoline 

dispensing facility. 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). 

IV. 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 review state choices, 

and approve those choices if they meet 

the minimum criteria of the Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action is 

proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88694 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is merely proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

state law as meeting federal 

requirements. Furthermore, the EPA’s 

Policy on Children’s Health does not 

apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

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 communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. 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.’’ 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 State did not evaluate 

environmental justice 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 

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. 

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 Executive Order 

12898 of achieving EJ for communities 

with EJ concerns. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: November 2, 2024. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25947 Filed 11–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 257 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2020–0107; FRL–7814.1– 

01–OLEM] 

RIN 2050–AH34 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Management System: Disposal of Coal 

Combustion Residuals From Electric 

Utilities; Legacy CCR Surface 

Impoundments; Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

proposing to correct three errors 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 8, 2024. This May 8, 2024 rule 

(Legacy Final Rule) established 

regulatory requirements for legacy coal 

combustion residuals (CCR) surface 

impoundments and CCR management 

units, among other things, under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). This proposal seeks 

comment on issues discussed in the 

direct final rule to correct three errors in 

the Legacy Final Rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 9, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OLEM–2020–0107, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management (OLEM) Docket, Mail Code 

28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier (by 

scheduled appointment only): EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal Holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https:// 

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions concerning this proposal, 

contact Taylor Holt, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery, Materials 

Recovery and Waste Management 

Division, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, MC: 5304T, Washington, DC 

20460; telephone number: (202) 566– 

1439; email address: Holt.Taylor@

epa.gov, or Frank Behan, Office of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery, 

Materials Recovery and Waste 

Management Division, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, MC: 5304T, Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

566–0531; email address: Behan.Frank@

epa.gov. For more information on this 

rulemaking please visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/coalash. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation—Written 

Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2020– 

0107, at https://www.regulations.gov 

(our preferred method), or the other 

methods identified in the ADDRESSES

section. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from the 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1