```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 102847-102851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29454]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
[email protected]v. 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, [email protected]v. For the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit

[[Page 102848]]

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, [email protected]v. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Oklahoma plan submitted by ODEQ does cover sources 
located in Indian country with some exclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 102849]]

Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 2020, the EPA approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to 
administer all the State's EPA-approved 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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-and-reconsideration-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 102850]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
    \7\ See 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.
    \9\ For 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.

                                              Table 1--EJSCREEN Analysis Summary for Existing Oklahoma MSW Landfills With EJ Indices Above 80%tile
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Values for buffer areas (radius) for each MSW landfill and the U.S. (percentile within U.S. where indicated)
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                      Quarry
                                                                     Enid City     Great Plains                      Newcastle       Muskogee                        Landfill
                            Variables                                Landfill       (Pocasset)      Ponca City       Landfill        Community    Osage Landfill      (Waste
                                                                   (Garfield, 3      Landfill     Landfill (Kay,    (McClain, 3      Landfill        (Osage, 3     Management of       U.S.
                                                                      miles)         (Grady, 3       3 miles)         miles)       (Muskogee, 3       miles)       OK) (Tulsa, 3
                                                                                      miles)                                          miles)                          miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Pollution Burden Indicators
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter (PM2.5), annual average......................  8.97 [micro]g/  9.01 [micro]g/  9.19 [micro]g/  9.81 [micro]g/  8.88 [micro]g/  8.69 [micro]g/  9.38 [micro]g/  8.45 [micro]g/
                                                                            m\3\      m\3\ (75th      m\3\ (78th      m\3\ (86th      m\3\ (71st      m\3\ (66th      m\3\ (81st            m\3\
                                                                     (74th %ile)           %ile)           %ile)           %ile)           %ile)           %ile)           %ile)            (--)
Ozone, summer seasonal average of daily 8-hour max..............        58.9 ppb        59.2 ppb        57.2 ppb        60.8 ppb        53.7 ppb        59.1 ppb        59.4 ppb        61.8 ppb
                                                                     (42nd %ile)     (46th %ile)     (33rd %ile)     (52nd %ile)     (15th %ile)     (43rd %ile)     (44th %ile)            (--)
Traffic proximity (daily traffic count/distance to road)........         180,000          57,000          45,000         250,000         200,000         180,000         680,000       1,700,000
                                                                     (23rd %ile)     (13th %ile)     (11th %ile)     (28th %ile)     (24th %ile)     (24th %ile)     (46th %ile)            (--)
Lead paint (percentage pre-1960 housing)........................           0.52%           0.14%           0.43%          0.045%           0.30%           0.66%          0.074%           0.30%
                                                                     (75th %ile)     (41st %ile)     (69th %ile)     (25th %ile)     (58th %ile)     (84th %ile)     (31st %ile)            (--)
Superfund proximity score*......................................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00           0.099            0.99            0.00            0.39
                                                                         (0%ile)         (0%ile)         (0%ile)         (0%ile)     (59th %ile)     (91st %ile)         (0%ile)            (--)
RMP proximity score *...........................................            1.20            0.22            1.30            0.28            0.16            0.95            1.60            0.57
                                                                     (85th %ile)     (46th %ile)     (86th %ile)     (50th %ile)     (40th %ile)     (79th %ile)     (90th %ile)            (--)
Hazardous waste proximity score *...............................            0.00            0.13            0.36            0.27            0.15            1.00            4.60             3.5
                                                                         (0%ile)     (20th %ile)     (29th %ile)     (26th %ile)     (21st %ile)     (45th %ile)     (77th %ile)            (--)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Demographic Indicators
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People of color population......................................             39%             15%             35%             23%             53%             30%             24%             40%
                                                                     (57th %ile)     (29th %ile)     (53rd %ile)     (40th %ile)     (68th %ile)     (48th %ile)     (42nd %ile)            (--)
Low-income population...........................................             49%             23%             47%             20%             55%             46%             32%             30%
                                                                     (80th %ile)     (43rd %ile)     (78th %ile)     (37th %ile)     (85th %ile)     (77th %ile)     (58th %ile)            (--)
Linguistically isolated population..............................              2%              1%              1%              0%              2%              1%              2%              5%
                                                                     (65th %ile)     (57th %ile)     (58th %ile)         (0%ile)     (64th %ile)     (58th %ile)     (62nd %ile)            (--)
Population with less than high school education.................             18%              7%             13%              9%             15%             11%              9%             11%
                                                                     (79th %ile)     (48th %ile)     (69th %ile)     (55th %ile)     (72nd %ile)     (63rd %ile)     (53rd %ile)            (--)
Population under 5 years of age.................................              7%              4%              4%              7%              8%              8%              5%              5%
                                                                     (73rd %ile)     (38th %ile)     (46th %ile)     (69th %ile)     (75th %ile)     (78th %ile)     (50th %ile)            (--)
Population over 64 years of age.................................             10%             31%             15%             12%             17%             15%             29%             18%
                                                                     (25th %ile)     (89th %ile)     (46th %ile)     (32nd %ile)     (53rd %ile)     (45th %ile)     (86th %ile)            (--)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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

[[Page 102851]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 80 FR 52099, August 27, 2015.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-management-process/managing-air-quality-human-health-environmental-and-economic#what.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
```