Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102847 

• Do the proposed priority and 

requirements contain technical terms or 

other wording that interferes with their 

clarity? 

• Does the format of the proposed 

priority and requirements (grouping and 

order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their 

clarity? 

• Would the proposed priority and 

requirements be easier to understand if 

we divided them into more (but shorter) 

sections? 

• Could the description of the 

proposed priority and requirements in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this preamble be more helpful in 

making the proposed priority and 

requirements easier to understand? If so, 

how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

proposed priority and requirements 

easier to understand? 

To send any comments about how the 

Department could make this proposed 

priority and requirements easier to 

understand, see the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this proposed priority and these 

proposed requirements would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Participation in the Innovative 

Rehabilitation Training program is 

voluntary. In addition, the only eligible 

entities for this program are State 

agencies or their equivalents under State 

law, Public, Private and Nonprofit 

Entities, including Indian Tribes and 

Institutions of Higher Education, which 

do not meet the definition of a small 

entity. We expect that in determining 

whether to apply for Innovative 

Rehabilitation Training program funds, 

an eligible entity would evaluate the 

requirements of preparing an 

application and any associated costs 

and weigh them against the benefits 

likely to be achieved by receiving a 

program grant. An eligible entity 

probably would apply only if it 

determines that the likely benefits 

exceed the costs of preparing an 

application. 

We believe that the proposed priority 

and requirements would not impose any 

additional burden on a small entity 

applying for a grant than the entity 

would face in the absence of the 

proposed action. That is, the length of 

the applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the proposed 

regulatory action and the time needed to 

prepare an application would likely be 

the same. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a small entity once it receives 

a grant because it would be able to meet 

the costs of compliance using the funds 

provided under this program. We invite 

comments from eligible small entities as 

to whether they believe this proposed 

regulatory action would have a 

significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, request evidence to support 

that belief. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

The proposed priority and requirements 

contain information collection 

requirements that are approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1894–0006. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document in an accessible format. 

The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. You may also 

access documents of the Department 

published in the Federal Register by 

using the article search feature at 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 

Glenna Wright-Gallo, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29996 Filed 12–17–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2024–0232; FRL–12425– 

01–R6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Air Quality Plans for Designated 

Facilities and Pollutants; Oklahoma; 

Control of Emissions From Existing 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve the CAA section 

111(d)State plan submitted by the State 

of Oklahoma for sources subject to the 

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills 

Emission Guidelines (EG). The 

Oklahoma MSW landfills plan was 

submitted to fulfill the State’s 

obligations under CAA section 111(d) to 

implement and enforce the 

requirements under the MSW Landfills 

EG. The EPA is proposing to approve 

the State plan and amend the agency 

regulations in accordance with the 

requirements of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 18, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2024–0232, at https://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

gesualdo.matthew@epa.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact Matthew Gesualdo, (214) 665– 

6530, gesualdo.matthew@epa.gov. For 

the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
102848 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1The Oklahoma plan submitted by ODEQ does 

cover sources located in Indian country with some 

exclusions. 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may not be 

publicly available due to docket file size 

restrictions or content (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Gesualdo, EPA Region 6 

Office, Air and Radiation Division— 

State Planning and Implementation 

Branch, (214) 665–6530, 

gesualdo.matthew@epa.gov. We 

encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov. Please call or 

email the contact listed above if you 

need alternative access to material 

indexed but not provided in the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. Background 

Section 111 of the CAA, ‘‘Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary 

Sources,’’ directs the EPA to establish 

emission standards for stationary 

sources of air pollution that could 

potentially endanger public health or 

welfare. These standards are referred to 

as New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS). Section 111(d) addresses the 

process by which the EPA and States 

regulate standards of performance for 

existing sources. When NSPS are 

promulgated for new sources, section 

111(d) and EPA regulations require that 

the EPA publish an Emission Guideline 

(EG) to regulate the same pollutants 

from existing facilities. While NSPS are 

directly applicable to new sources, EG 

for existing sources (designated 

facilities) are intended for States to use 

to develop a State plan to submit to the 

EPA. 

State plan submittal and revisions 

under CAA section 111(d) must be 

consistent with the applicable EG and 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart B, and part 62, subpart A. The 

regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, 

contain general provisions applicable to 

the adoption and submittal of State 

plans under CAA section 111(d). 

Additionally, 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, 

provides the procedural framework by 

which the EPA will approve or 

disapprove such plans submitted by a 

state. Once approved by the EPA, the 

State plan becomes federally 

enforceable. If a State does not submit 

an approvable State plan to the EPA, the 

EPA is responsible for developing, 

implementing, and enforcing a federal 

plan. 

The MSW landfills NSPS for new 

landfills and EG for existing landfills 

were first promulgated by EPA on 

March 12, 1996, in 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts WWW and Cc, respectively (61 

FR 9905). On August 29, 2016, the EPA 

finalized revisions to the MSW landfills 

NSPS and EG in 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts XXX and Cf, respectively (81 

FR 59332; 81 FR 59313). The 2016 EG 

revision updates the control 

requirements and monitoring, reporting, 

and recordkeeping provisions for 

existing MSW landfill sources. 

The current MSW landfills EG, found 

at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, concerns 

the regulation of landfill gas and its 

components, including methane, from 

MSW landfills for which construction, 

reconstruction, or modification was 

commenced on or before July 17, 2014. 

The deadline to submit a State plan to 

the EPA was May 30, 2017. On May 21, 

2021, EPA finalized the MSW landfills 

Federal plan in 40 CFR part 62, subpart 

OOO (86 FR 27756). The MSW landfills 

Federal plan at 40 CFR part 62, subpart 

OOO, applies to States that do not have 

an EPA-approved State plan. The MSW 

landfills Federal plan is currently in 

effect in Oklahoma. 

In order to fulfill obligations under 

CAA section 111(d), the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ) submitted a revised State plan 

for the control of emissions from 

existing MSW landfills for the State of 

Oklahoma on April 30, 2024.1 The 

Oklahoma MSW landfills plan 

implements and enforces the applicable 

provisions under the MSW landfills EG 

at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and 

additionally meets the relevant 

requirements of the CAA section 111(d) 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 

60, subpart B. The Oklahoma submittal 

and the supplements are included in the 

public docket for this rulemaking 

(Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2024– 

0232). 

II. Evaluation 

The EPA has evaluated the Oklahoma 

MSW landfills plan to determine 

whether the plan meets applicable 

requirements from the MSW landfills 

EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and 

the CAA section 111(d) implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. 

The EPA’s detailed rationale and 

discussion on the Oklahoma MSW 

landfills plan can be found in the EPA 

Technical Support Document (TSD), 

located in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

The State plan submittal package 

includes all materials necessary to be 

deemed administratively and 

technically complete according to the 

criteria of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. 

The State plan document (the 

‘‘Oklahoma MSW Landfill State Plan’’) 

includes all the necessary authority for 

the implementation and enforcement of 

the MSW landfill Emission Guidelines 

in the State. Specifically, the State 

appropriately incorporated all 

applicable EG requirements from 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf, into the 

Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 

252:100–47, Control of Emissions from 

Existing Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills. Both the adopted State plan 

document and the relevant OAC 

regulations, as well as all other relevant 

plan submittal materials may be found 

in the docket for this action. Necessary 

State legal and enforcement authorities 

required for plan approval are located 

elsewhere in Oklahoma’s statute, rules 

and regulations and have been reviewed 

and approved of by the EPA in the 

course of prior State implementation 

plan as well as section 111(d) and/or 

129 State plan approvals. See 40 CFR 

part 52, subpart E, and 40 CFR part 62, 

subpart E. 

The Oklahoma MSW landfills plan 

has been evaluated in detail in the TSD. 

Our evaluation demonstrates that the 

Oklahoma MSW landfills plan meets the 

requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cf and subpart B, and is consistent with 

the requirements for an approvable 

section 111(d) State plans for MSW 

landfills. 

III. Impact on Areas of Indian Country 

Following the U.S. Supreme Court 

decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. 

Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the 

State of Oklahoma requested approval 

under Section 10211(a) of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A 

Legacy for Users, Public Law 109–59, 

119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) 

(‘‘SAFETEA’’), to administer in certain 

areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 

U.S.C. 1151) the State’s environmental 

regulatory programs that were 

previously approved by the EPA for 

areas outside of Indian country. The 

State’s request excluded certain areas of 

Indian country further described below. 

In addition, the State only sought 

approval to the extent that such 

approval is necessary for the State to 

administer a program in light of 

Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102849 

2 In ODEQ v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that 

under the CAA, a state has the authority to 

implement a SIP in non-reservation areas of Indian 

country in the state, where there has been no 

demonstration of Tribal jurisdiction. Under the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision, the CAA does not provide 

authority to states to implement SIPs in Indian 

reservations. ODEQ did not, however, substantively 

address the separate authority in Indian country 

provided specifically to Oklahoma under 

SAFETEA. That separate authority was not invoked 

until the State submitted its request under 

SAFETEA, and was not approved until EPA’s 

decision, described in this section, on October 1, 

2020. 

3 In accordance with Executive Order 13990, EPA 

is currently reviewing our October 1, 2020, 

SAFETEA approval. On December 22, 2021, EPA 

proposed to withdraw and reconsider the October 

1, 2020, SAFETEA approval. See https://

www.epa.gov/ok/proposed-withdrawal-andreconsideration-and-supporting-information. EPA 

expects to have further discussions with Tribal 

governments and State of Oklahoma as part of this 

reconsideration. EPA also notes that the October 1, 

2020, approval is the subject of a pending challenge 

in Federal court. Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma v. 

Regan, No. 20–9635 (10th Cir.). Pending completion 

of EPA’s review, EPA is proceeding with this 

proposed action in accordance with the October 1, 

2020, approval. EPA may make further changes to 

the approval of Oklahoma’s plan to reflect the 

outcome of the proposed withdrawal and 

reconsideration of the October 1, 2020 SAFETEA 

approval. To the extent any change occurs in the 

scope of Oklahoma’s CAA 111(d)/129 authority in 

Indian country before the finalization of this 

proposed rule, such a change may affect the scope 

of the EPA’s final action on the proposed rule. 

4EPA’s prior approvals relating to Oklahoma’s 

CAA section 111(d)/129 plans did not apply in 

areas of Indian country located in the state. See, 

e.g., 70 FR 57764 (October 4, 2005). Such prior 

expressed limitations are superseded by the EPA’s 

approval of Oklahoma’s SAFETEA request. 

5See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ 

learn-about-environmental-justice. 

6The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://

www.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

7See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ 

geography/about/glossary.html. 

8 In addition, EJSCREEN relies on the five-year 

block group estimates from the U.S. Census 

American Community Survey. The advantage of 

using five-year over single-year estimates is 

increased statistical reliability of the data (i.e., 

lower sampling error), particularly for small 

geographic areas and population groups. For more 

information, see https://www.census.gov/content/ 

dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_

general_handbook_2020.pdf. 

Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 

2014).2

On October 1, 2020, the EPA 

approved Oklahoma’s SAFETEA request 

to administer all the State’s EPAapproved environmental regulatory 

programs, including the Oklahoma SIP, 

in the requested areas of Indian country. 

As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA’s 

approval under SAFETEA does not 

include Indian country lands, including 

rights-of-way running through the same, 

that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the 

Indian titles to which have not been 

extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); 

(2) are held in trust by the United States 

on behalf of an individual Indian or 

Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, 

if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to 

such land, or an area that included such 

land, in accordance with a treaty with 

the United States to which such Tribe 

was a party, and (b) never allotted the 

land to a member or citizen of the Tribe 

(collectively ‘‘excluded Indian country 

lands’’).3

The EPA’s approval under SAFETEA 

expressly provided that to the extent 

EPA’s prior approvals of Oklahoma’s 

environmental programs excluded 

Indian country, any such exclusions are 

superseded for the geographic areas of 

Indian country covered by the EPA’s 

approval of Oklahoma’s SAFETEA 

request.4 The approval also provided 

that future revisions or amendments to 

Oklahoma’s approved environmental 

regulatory programs would extend to 

the covered areas of Indian country 

(without any further need for additional 

requests under SAFETEA). 

As explained earlier in this action, the 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Oklahoma CAA section 111(d) MSW 

landfill State plan that was submitted by 

the State of Oklahoma on April 30, 

2024. More specifically, we are 

proposing to approve Oklahoma’s MSW 

landfill plan addressing CAA section 

111(d) requirements for MSW under the 

MSW landfill EG codified at 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf. The Oklahoma MSW 

landfill plan applies statewide, but only 

affects specific types of facilities, as 

discussed earlier in this document. 

Consistent with the EPA’s October 1, 

2020, SAFETEA approval, if this 

approval is finalized as proposed, this 

Oklahoma MSW landfill plan will apply 

to all Indian country within Oklahoma, 

other than the excluded Indian country 

lands, as described earlier. EPA has 

identified multiple existing facilities 

located within currently recognized 

reservation areas and not on excluded 

Indian country lands. These facilities 

will be subject to the Oklahoma MSW 

landfill plan we are proposing to 

approve. Any newly constructed 

municipal solid waste landfill in these 

same areas would be subject to the 

MSW landfill NSPS, not the MSW 

landfill plan implementing the MSW 

landfill EG requirements. 

IV. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

Oklahoma MSW landfill plan submitted 

by ODEQ in accordance with the 

requirements of section 111(d) of the 

CAA and to amend 40 CFR part 62, 

subpart E, to codify EPA’s approval. The 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Oklahoma MSW landfill plan is at least 

as protective as the Federal 

requirements provided under the MSW 

landfills EG, codified at 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf. Once approved by the EPA, 

the Oklahoma MSW landfills plan will 

become federally enforceable. 

V. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

Information on Executive Order 12898 

(Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994), Executive Order 14094 

(Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment 

to Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 

25251, April 26, 2023), and how EPA 

defines environmental justice can be 

found in the section titled ‘‘Statutory 

and Executive Order Reviews’’ in this 

proposed rule.5 EPA is providing 

additional analysis of environmental 

justice associated with this action. The 

results of this analysis are being 

provided for informational and 

transparency purposes, not as a basis of 

our proposed action. 

EPA conducted screening analyses 

using EJSCREEN, an environmental 

justice mapping and screening tool that 

provides EPA with a nationally 

consistent dataset and approach for 

combining various environmental and 

demographic indicators.6 The 

EJSCREEN tool presents these indicators 

at a Census block group (CBG) level or 

a larger user-specified ‘‘buffer’’ area that 

covers multiple CBGs.7 An individual 

CBG is a cluster of contiguous blocks 

within the same census tract and 

generally contains between 600 and 

3,000 people. EJSCREEN is not a tool for 

performing in-depth risk analysis, but is 

instead a screening tool that provides an 

initial representation of indicators 

related to environmental justice and is 

subject to uncertainty in some 

underlying data (e.g., some 

environmental indicators are based on 

monitoring data which are not 

uniformly available; others are based on 

self-reported data).8 To help mitigate 

this uncertainty, we have summarized 

EJSCREEN data within larger ‘‘buffer’’ 

areas covering multiple block groups 

and representing the average resident 

within the buffer areas surrounding the 

MSW landfills. We present EJSCREEN 

environmental indicators to help screen 

for locations where residents may 

experience a higher overall pollution 

burden than would be expected for a 

block group with the same total 

population. These indicators of overall 

pollution burden include estimates of 

ambient particulate matter (PM2.5) and 

ozone concentration, a score for traffic 

proximity and volume, percentage of 

pre-1960 housing units (lead paint 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
102850 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

9For additional information on environmental 

indicators and proximity scores in EJSCREEN, see 

‘‘EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Mapping and 

Screening Tool: EJSCREEN Technical 

Documentation,’’ Chapter 3 and Appendix C 

(September 2019) at https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2021-04/documents/ejscreen_

technical_document.pdf. 

indicator), and scores for proximity to 

Superfund sites, risk management plan 

(RMP) sites, and hazardous waste 

facilities.9 EJSCREEN also provides 

information on demographic indicators, 

including percent low-income, 

communities of color, linguistic 

isolation, and less than high school 

education. The EPA prepared 

EJSCREEN reports covering buffer areas 

of approximately 3-mile radii around 

the existing MSW landfills in 

Oklahoma. Table 1 presents a summary 

of results from the EPA’s screening-level 

analysis for the areas surrounding each 

MSW landfill compared to the U.S. as 

a whole, where the landfill was located 

in an area where one or more of the EJ 

indices were greater than the 80th 

percentiles (the full, detailed EJSCREEN 

reports are provided in the docket for 

this rulemaking). 

TABLE 1—EJSCREEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING OKLAHOMA MSW LANDFILLS WITH EJ INDICES ABOVE

80%TILE

Variables 

Values for buffer areas (radius) for each MSW landfill and the U.S. (percentile within U.S. where indicated) 

Enid City 

Landfill 

(Garfield, 3 

miles) 

Great Plains 

(Pocasset) 

Landfill 

(Grady, 3 

miles) 

Ponca City 

Landfill (Kay, 3 

miles) 

Newcastle 

Landfill 

(McClain, 3 

miles) 

Muskogee 

Community 

Landfill 

(Muskogee, 3 

miles) 

Osage Landfill 

(Osage, 3 

miles) 

Quarry Landfill 

(Waste 

Management 

of OK) (Tulsa, 

3 miles) 

U.S. 

Pollution Burden Indicators 

Particulate matter (PM2.5), 

annual average .............. 8.97 μg/m3

(74th %ile) 

9.01 μg/m3

(75th %ile) 

9.19 μg/m3

(78th %ile) 

9.81 μg/m3

(86th %ile) 

8.88 μg/m3

(71st %ile) 

8.69 μg/m3

(66th %ile) 

9.38 μg/m3

(81st %ile) 

8.45 μg/m3

(—) 

Ozone, summer seasonal 

average of daily 8-hour 

max ................................ 58.9 ppb 

(42nd %ile) 

59.2 ppb 

(46th %ile) 

57.2 ppb 

(33rd %ile) 

60.8 ppb 

(52nd %ile) 

53.7 ppb 

(15th %ile) 

59.1 ppb 

(43rd %ile) 

59.4 ppb 

(44th %ile) 

61.8 ppb 

(—) 

Traffic proximity (daily traffic count/distance to 

road) .............................. 180,000 

(23rd %ile) 

57,000 

(13th %ile) 

45,000 

(11th %ile) 

250,000 

(28th %ile) 

200,000 

(24th %ile) 

180,000 

(24th %ile) 

680,000 

(46th %ile) 

1,700,000 

(—) 

Lead paint (percentage 

pre-1960 housing) ......... 0.52% 

(75th %ile) 

0.14% 

(41st %ile) 

0.43% 

(69th %ile) 

0.045% 

(25th %ile) 

0.30% 

(58th %ile) 

0.66% 

(84th %ile) 

0.074% 

(31st %ile) 

0.30% 

(—) 

Superfund proximity score* 0.00 

(0%ile) 

0.00 

(0%ile) 

0.00 

(0%ile) 

0.00 

(0%ile) 

0.099 

(59th %ile) 

0.99 

(91st %ile) 

0.00 

(0%ile) 

0.39 

(—) 

RMP proximity score * ....... 1.20 

(85th %ile) 

0.22 

(46th %ile) 

1.30 

(86th %ile) 

0.28 

(50th %ile) 

0.16 

(40th %ile) 

0.95 

(79th %ile) 

1.60 

(90th %ile) 

0.57 

(—) 

Hazardous waste proximity 

score * ............................ 0.00 

(0%ile) 

0.13 

(20th %ile) 

0.36 

(29th %ile) 

0.27 

(26th %ile) 

0.15 

(21st %ile) 

1.00 

(45th %ile) 

4.60 

(77th %ile) 

3.5 

(—) 

Demographic Indicators 

People of color population 39% 

(57th %ile) 

15% 

(29th %ile) 

35% 

(53rd %ile) 

23% 

(40th %ile) 

53% 

(68th %ile) 

30% 

(48th %ile) 

24% 

(42nd %ile) 

40% 

(—) 

Low-income population ..... 49% 

(80th %ile) 

23% 

(43rd %ile) 

47% 

(78th %ile) 

20% 

(37th %ile) 

55% 

(85th %ile) 

46% 

(77th %ile) 

32% 

(58th %ile) 

30% 

(—) 

Linguistically isolated population ............................ 2% 

(65th %ile) 

1% 

(57th %ile) 

1% 

(58th %ile) 

0% 

(0%ile) 

2% 

(64th %ile) 

1% 

(58th %ile) 

2% 

(62nd %ile) 

5% 

(—) 

Population with less than 

high school education .... 18% 

(79th %ile) 

7% 

(48th %ile) 

13% 

(69th %ile) 

9% 

(55th %ile) 

15% 

(72nd %ile) 

11% 

(63rd %ile) 

9% 

(53rd %ile) 

11% 

(—) 

Population under 5 years 

of age ............................. 7% 

(73rd %ile) 

4% 

(38th %ile) 

4% 

(46th %ile) 

7% 

(69th %ile) 

8% 

(75th %ile) 

8% 

(78th %ile) 

5% 

(50th %ile) 

5% 

(—) 

Population over 64 years 

of age ............................. 10% 

(25th %ile) 

31% 

(89th %ile) 

15% 

(46th %ile) 

12% 

(32nd %ile) 

17% 

(53rd %ile) 

15% 

(45th %ile) 

29% 

(86th %ile) 

18% 

(—) 

* The traffic proximity and volume indicator is a score calculated by daily traffic count divided by distance in meters to the road. The Superfund proximity, RMP 

proximity, and hazardous waste proximity indicators are all scores calculated by site or facility counts divided by distance in kilometers. 

EPA proposes to approve Oklahoma’s 

MSW Landfills Plan, received on April 

30, 2024, in accordance with section 

111(d) of the CAA. The Oklahoma MSW 

Landfills Plan incorporates Federal 

requirements for MSW landfills, as 

specified in the MSW landfills EG at 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf, which are also 

implemented under the MSW Landfills 

Federal Plan at 40 CFR part 62, subpart 

OOO. The MSW Landfills Federal Plan 

was implemented by EPA in Oklahoma 

as Oklahoma did not have an approved 

MSW landfills plan addressing 

applicable EG requirements. These EG 

requirements implemented under the 

MSW Landfills Federal Plan and now 

incorporated by Oklahoma in its MSW 

landfills plan is designed to result in 

significant emissions reductions for 

MSW landfills, as described in the 

Federal Registers for the MSW landfill 

rules (80 FR 52100; 81 FR 59276). 

Landfill gas is a natural byproduct of the 

decomposition of organic material in 

landfills and is composed of roughly 

50% methane, 50% carbon dioxide 

(CO2), and less than 1% non-methane 

organic compounds (NMOC) by volume, 

which include volatile organic 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102851 

10See 80 FR 52099, August 27, 2015. 

11 Id. 

12See https://www.epa.gov/air-qualitymanagement-process/managing-air-quality-humanhealth-environmental-and-economic#what. 

compounds (VOC) and various organic 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP).10 VOC 

emissions are precursors to both fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone 

formation; exposure to PM2.5 and ozone 

is associated with significant public 

health effects, including (1) 

cardiovascular morbidity such as heart 

attacks, (2) respiratory morbidity such 

as asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, (3) 

hospital admissions and emergency 

room visits, and (4) premature 

mortality.11 Hazardous air pollutants 

may cause cancer or other serious health 

effects, such as reproductive effects or 

birth defects.12 In addition, methane is 

a potent greenhouse gas with a global 

warming potential 28–36 times greater 

than CO2. Therefore, we believe that 

these requirements for existing MSW 

landfills and resulting emissions 

reductions have climate benefits and 

have contributed to reduced 

environmental and health impacts on all 

populations impacted by emissions 

from these sources in Oklahoma, 

including communities with 

environmental justice concerns, and 

will continue to do so under Federal 

oversight. This proposed rule is not 

anticipated to have disproportionately 

high or adverse human health or 

environmental effects on communities 

with environmental justice concerns 

because it is not anticipated to result in 

or contribute to emissions increases in 

Oklahoma. If finalized as proposed, 

EPA’s approval of the Oklahoma MSW 

Landfills Plan will make the Plan and 

the corresponding MSW landfills EG 

requirements incorporated into the Plan 

federally enforceable by EPA as of the 

effective date of the final rulemaking. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a CAA section 

111(d) submission that complies with 

the provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 

42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart 

A. Thus, in reviewing CAA section

111(d) State plan submissions, the

EPA’s role is to approve State plans that

meet the criteria of the CAA and

implementing regulations. Accordingly,

this action merely proposes to approve

State law as meeting Federal

requirements and does not impose

additional requirements beyond those

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

This proposed approval of revisions 

to the Oklahoma 111(d) State plan in 

accordance with section 111(d) of the 

CAA as discussed more fully elsewhere 

in this document will apply, if finalized 

as proposed, to certain areas of Indian 

country as discussed in the preamble, 

and therefore has Tribal implications as 

specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). However, this 

action will neither impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on federally 

recognized Tribal governments, nor 

preempt Tribal law. This action will not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on federally recognized Tribal 

governments because no actions will be 

required of Tribal governments. This 

action will also not preempt Tribal law 

as no Oklahoma tribe implements a 

regulatory program under the CAA, and 

thus does not have applicable or related 

Tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA 

Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 

2011), the EPA has engaged with Tribal 

governments that may be affected by 

this action and provided information 

about this action. 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. Executive Order 

14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) 

builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 

and defines EJ as, among other things, 

‘‘the just treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people, regardless of 

income, race, color, national origin, or 

Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency 

decision-making and other Federal 

activities that affect human health and 

the environment.’’ 

The air agency did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its submittal; 

the CAA and applicable implementing 

regulations neither prohibit nor require 

such an evaluation. EPA performed an 

EJ analysis, as is described in the 

section titled, ‘‘Environmental Justice 

Considerations.’’ The analysis was done 

for the purpose of providing additional 

context and information about this 

rulemaking to the public, not as a basis 

of the action. Due to the nature of the 

action being taken here, this action is 

expected to have a neutral to positive 

impact on the air quality of the affected 

area. In addition, there is no information 

in the record upon which this decision 

is based inconsistent with the stated 

goal of E.O. 12898/14096 of achieving EJ 

for communities with EJ concerns. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 

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

Dated: December 9, 2024. 

Earthea Nance, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29454 Filed 12–17–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS