Proposed Rule2025-00115
Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 17, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing an approval and a limited approval and limited disapproval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission made by the State of Arizona to address emissions of particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller (PM<INF>10</INF>) from agricultural operations. The SIP submission includes an amended statute, two definition rules, and two rules regulating crop and animal operations in Pinal County, Arizona. We are proposing action on local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act"). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5790-5794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00115]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0600; FRL-12508-01-R9]
Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing an
approval and a limited approval and limited disapproval of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission made by the State of Arizona to
address emissions of particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter or
smaller (PM<INF>10</INF>) from agricultural operations. The SIP
submission includes an amended statute, two definition rules, and two
rules regulating crop and animal operations in Pinal County, Arizona.
We are proposing action on local rules to regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 18, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2024-0600 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. 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 one of the people
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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>. 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 one of the people identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general inquiries and inquiries
related to the Arizona Administrative Code: Christine Vineyard, EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415)
947-4125; email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7107181f14081003155f121903180205181f14311401105f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e5938c8b809c849781cb868d978c96918c8b80a5809584cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a>. For inquiries related to
the Arizona Revised Statutes: Alina Batool, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone (415) 972-3345; email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c4a6a5b0ababa8eaa5a8adaaa584a1b4a5eaa3abb2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="096b687d666665276865606768496c7968276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of the statute and rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and statutory
revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the statute and rules?
[[Page 5791]]
B. Do the statute and rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. What are the deficiencies?
D. The EPA's recommendations to further improve the statute and
rules
E. Proposed action and public comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the statute and rules addressed by this proposal with
the dates that they were adopted and submitted to the EPA by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ or ``State'').
Table 1--Submitted Statute and Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona revised statutes (ARS) Statute title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS section 49-457.................... Agricultural best management practices 03/26/2021 03/03/2023
committee; members; powers; permits;
definitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona administrative code (AAC) AAC Title............................... Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAC R18-2-610......................... Definitions for R19-2-610.01, R18-2- 11/26/2021 03/03/2023
610.02, and R18-2-610.03.
AAC R18-2-610.03...................... Agricultural PM General Permit for Crop 11/26/2021 03/03/2023
Operations; Pinal County PM
Nonattainment Area.
AAC R18-2-611......................... Definitions for R18-2-611.01, R18-2- 11/26/2021 03/03/2023
611.02, and R18-2-611.03.
AAC R18-2-611.03...................... Agricultural PM General Permit for 11/26/2021 03/03/2023
Animal Operations; Pinal County PM
Nonattainment Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 3, 2023, the SIP submittal containing the documents
listed in Table 1 was deemed complete by operation of law.
B. Are there other versions of the statute and rules?
We approved an earlier version of ARS 49-457 into the SIP on June
29, 1999 (64 FR 34726). We also approved earlier versions of AAC R18-2-
610 and R18-2-610.03 into the SIP on May 1, 2017 (82 FR 20267). If we
finalize this proposal to approve the submitted version of ARS 49-457
and AAC R18-2-610 and to issue a limited approval and limited
disapproval of the submitted version of AAC R18-2-610.03, then these
versions will replace the versions of this statute and these rules in
the SIP.
We note that on October 11, 2001, we approved AAC R18-2-611,
``Agricultural PM-10 General Permit; Maricopa PM<INF>10</INF>
Nonattainment Area'' into the Arizona SIP, which applies to Maricopa
County commercial farmers (crop operations). See 66 FR 51869 (October
11, 2001). The March 3, 2023 submittal of rule AAC R18-2-611,
``Definitions for R18-2-611.01, R18-2-611.02, and R18-2-611.03'' is a
separate rule that was not submitted to replace the existing SIP-
approved rule AAC R18-2-611, ``Agricultural PM-10 General Permit;
Maricopa PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Area.'' If the EPA approves the
new rule AAC R18-2-611, ``Definitions for R18-2-611.01, R18-2-611.02,
and R18-2-611.03'' into the Arizona SIP, there will be two different
rules in the SIP with the same number, but they would be differentiated
by their different titles and dates.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and statutory revisions?
Emissions of PM, including PM<INF>10</INF>, contribute to effects
that are harmful to human health and the environment, including
premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to
vegetation and ecosystems. The CAA requires states to have SIPs that
provide for attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS, including the adoption and implementation of
regulations to control PM emissions in designated PM<INF>10</INF>
nonattainment areas. ADEQ's submission addresses emissions from certain
sources of PM<INF>10</INF> emissions through a statutory provision and
several regulations.
First, this submission would revise the existing SIP-approved
version of ARS section 49-457 by, among other things, expanding the
definition of ``regulated agricultural activities'' to include
activities of dairies, beef feedlots, poultry facilities, and swine
facilities. It would also expand the definition of ``regulated area''
to apply to any PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas designated by the
EPA on or after June 1, 2009, which includes the West Pinal County
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area.
Second, this submission would revise existing regulations in the
Arizona SIP. AAC R18-2-610 makes largely administrative updates to the
existing crop operations definitions rule and adds a definition for
``unpaved vehicle or equipment traffic area.'' AAC R18-2-610.03 amends
the existing crop operations rule applicable to the West Pinal County
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area, primarily adding a requirement for
operators to implement two, as opposed to one, best management
practices (BMPs) from the list of options for different areas.
Third, this submission would add a new regulation to the Arizona
SIP. AAC R18-2-611.03 requires that commercial dairy operations, beef
cattle feedlots, poultry facilities, and swine facilities implement
BMPs to reduce PM<INF>10</INF> emissions from those sources. The new
AAC R18-2-611 provides definitions for AAC R18-2-611.03 and other
animal operations BMP rules in the State.
The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information
about the statute and rules.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the statute and rules?
SIP rules must meet applicable substantive requirements, e.g., must
be sufficiently stringent (see CAA sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C)), must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must
not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)).
States must adopt and implement reasonably available control
measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology
(RACT), in Moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas (see CAA
section 189(a)(1)(C)). Nonattainment areas that are classified as
Serious must also demonstrate that they have implemented best available
control measures (BACM). (see CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)). In addition,
each
[[Page 5792]]
attainment plan must ``provide for the implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including
such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available
control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national
primary ambient air quality standards.'' (see CAA section 172(c)(1)).
RACM and BACM findings are generally made in the context of an overall
attainment demonstration. Because this submission is not being
evaluated at this time as part of an attainment plan submission, we
will not evaluate these rules for RACM and BACM in this action and will
instead do so as part of a future attainment planning action.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate control rules
submitted for PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas, including
enforceability, revision/relaxation, and rule stringency requirements,
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. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August
16, 1994).
5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
B. Do the statute and rules meet the evaluation criteria?
The EPA is proposing to conclude that the submitted statute, ARS
Sec. 49-457 meets the evaluation criteria. We note that ARS Sec. 49-
457 is not intended to regulate agricultural activities in isolation.
Although it establishes a number of substantive requirements (for
example, the requirement that a person who commences a regulated
agricultural activity must comply with the permit), it does not
specify, in detail, the requirements for regulated entities. As a
result, our evaluation of enforceability is not an evaluation of
whether the statute in isolation establishes specific enforceable
requirements on agricultural activities, but is instead an evaluation
of whether the requirements of the statute are sufficiently clear and
enforceable that, when combined with specific local rules implementing
the statute (which also have been or will be submitted into the SIP),
these rules can be enforced. We propose to find that the rule
provisions regarding applicability, BMPs, recordkeeping, reporting and
other requirements in the statute are clear. These and other provisions
are sufficient to establish a framework under which, in combination
with local rules, affected sources and regulators can evaluate and
determine compliance with ARS Sec. 49-457 consistently as required by
CAA section 110(a).
The EPA is proposing to conclude that the submitted regulations,
AAC R18-2-610, R18-2-610.03, AAC R18-2-611, and R18-2-611.03 largely
meet the evaluation criteria. The provisions of the rule are generally
clear and mostly specify requirements in a manner that sufficiently
specifies what is necessary in order to comply. The updated regulations
also strengthen the SIP, adding additional control requirements for
both animal and crop operations. Rule provisions that do not meet the
evaluation criteria are summarized below and discussed further in the
TSD.
C. What are the deficiencies?
EPA is proposing to conclude that R18-2-610.03 and R18-2-611.03 do
not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of title I of
the Act, because they are not sufficiently enforceable and therefore
prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
The crop and animal operation rules require operators to complete a
Best Management Practices Program General Permit Record Form annually.
This form is not submitted to the Director but must instead be provided
to the Director within two business days of notice to the operator. The
form must contain the name of the operator, signature, date signed, and
the mailing or physical address of the operation. For animal
operations, the form must contain a specification of the BMPs selected
for each category. For crop operations the requirement is less clear.
Paragraph C.3 of R18-2-610.03 states that the form shall include ``The
following information for each best management practice selected for
tillage, ground operations and harvest, cropland, noncropland,
commercial farm roads, and significant earth moving activities (if
applicable).'' However, there is no list of ``following information''
so it is not clear what, if anything, must be included pursuant to this
requirement.
The rules also require operators to maintain records demonstrating
compliance for three years. The records must include a copy of the BMP
Program General Permit Record Form, but the rules do not otherwise
specify any records that must be maintained or reported. Finally, the
rules require operators to complete a survey every three years that
includes the number of animals for each type of operation, the total
miles of unpaved roads, the total acreage of access connections and
equipment areas, the chosen BMPs, and, for some operators, whether
water was applied on a high risk day. The survey is sent out by ADEQ
and responses are submitted to the Arizona Department of Agriculture
(ADA). The survey results are aggregated by the ADA and reported to
ADEQ. The rules prohibit the report from including any operator's name
(that is, the results are anonymous).
Under Rules R18-2-610.03 and R18-2-611.03, absent a specific
request from the Director (upon which an operator would have two
business days to provide records), source-specific compliance
information is only obtained through the survey. This process is not
enforceable because compliance information is only available if ADEQ
sends out the survey and the ADA subsequently reports the information
to ADEQ or the ADEQ exercises its discretion to request records.
Further, because the report from ADA to ADEQ is aggregated so that the
individual operators remain anonymous, it is not clear whether the
survey results would be sufficient to verify or incentivize compliance.
Moreover, because these rules require operators to select from a menu
of compliance options, it is not clear how compliance could be
determined without knowing the chosen compliance options. While it may
be possible to verify whether a particular BMP is being implemented,
for example, cessation of night tilling, access restrictions, reduced
vehicle speeds, or watering, if there is no record of which BMPs have
been selected, a determination of noncompliance with the rules would
essentially require an exhaustive demonstration that none of the BMPs
are being implemented. In the absence of the Director exercising their
discretion to request records, it becomes nearly impossible to enforce
the requirements in these rules.
D. The EPA's Recommendations to Further Improve the Statute and Rules
The TSDs include recommendations for the next time the State
modifies the statute and rules.
[[Page 5793]]
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
The EPA is proposing to approve the statute, ARS Sec. 49-457, and
the definition rules, AAC R18-2-610 and R18-2-611. The statute sets out
the basic framework of the statewide agricultural BMP program,
strengthening the program by expanding its geographic scope and
strengthening its substantive requirements, particularly in
nonattainment areas classified as Serious. The crop operations
definitions rule, AAC R18-2-610 updates a number of definitions,
largely with administrative updates. The animal operations definitions
rule, AAC R18-2-611 does not itself contain substantive requirements
but lays out definitions to support animal operation BMP rules in
Arizona. The statute and definitions rules do not contain deficiencies
that prevent our approval, and we therefore propose to approve them as
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act.
The EPA is also proposing a limited approval and limited
disapproval of the submitted Pinal County crop operation, AAC R18-2-
610.03, and animal operation, AAC R18-2-611.03, rules. The EPA is
proposing a limited approval because the EPA's analysis demonstrates
that the rules would strengthen the SIP. The crop operations rule
strengthens existing requirements, and the animal operations rule
establishes new requirements for agricultural PM<INF>10</INF> sources
in Pinal County. The EPA is proposing a simultaneous limited
disapproval for these rules based on the enforceability issues
identified in section II.C. of this notice and described in detail in
the rule TSD.
If we finalize this approval and limited approval and limited
disapproval as proposed, we will replace the existing version of ARS
Sec. 49-457 and AAC R18-2-610 and AAC R18-2-610.03 in the SIP, as well
as add the new AAC R18-2-611 and AAC R18-2-611.03 to the SIP. We will
accept comments from the public on this proposal until February 18,
2025. 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 the State to correct
the deficiencies in a timely manner.
Note that the submitted rules have been adopted as Arizona State
law, 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: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf</a>.
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 ARS Sec. 49-457, ``Agricultural best management practices
committee; members; powers; permits; definitions'' revised on March 26,
2021, which establishes a framework for an agricultural best management
practice permit in Arizona, and AAC R18-2-610, ``Definitions for R19-2-
610.01, R18-2-610.02, and R18-2-610.03,'' AAC R18-2-610.03,
``Agricultural PM General Permit for Crop Operations; Pinal County PM
Nonattainment Area,'' AAC R18-2-611, ``Definitions for R18-2-611.01,
R18-2-611.02, and R18-2-611.03,'' and AAC R18-2-611.03, ``Agricultural
PM General Permit for Animal Operations; Pinal County PM Nonattainment
Area,'' which establish agricultural best management practice permits
for crop and animal operations in Pinal County. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials available through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact one
of the people 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 an approval, 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
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.
[[Page 5794]]
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
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 and Executive
Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental
Justice for All
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.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on
and supplements Executive Order 12898 and defines EJ as, among other
things, ``the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people,
regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation,
or disability, in agency decision-making and other Federal activities
that affect human health and the environment.''
The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA 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 Orders 12898 and 14096 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 2, 2025.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator,Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2025-00115 Filed 1-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 17, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.