51170 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 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 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: August 12, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20747 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2015–0509, FRL–9933–01– 

Region 2] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities; New 

York 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to withdraw 

its approval of a provision of the New 

York State plan that implements and 

enforces the Emission Guidelines for 

existing sewage sludge incineration 

units. This action would withdraw the 

EPA’s approval of a provision of the 

State sewage sludge incineration plan 

allowing for affirmative defenses of 

Clean Air Act violations in the case of 

malfunctions. No other provision in the 

State plan would be affected by this 

action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2015–0509 by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Ruvo.Richard@epa.gov 

• Mail: EPA–R02–OAR–2015–0509, 

Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs 

Branch, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 

25th Floor, New York, New York 

10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Richard Ruvo, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m. excluding federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2015– 

0509. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change, and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available at 

www.regulations.gov or at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. The EPA 

requests, if at all possible, that you 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51171 

1EPA has proposed a Federal SSI plan which 

would apply to SSI units that are not covered by 

an approved and effective state plan. The proposed 

federal plan does not include an affirmative defense 

to violations that result from malfunctions. 80 FR 

23402, 23407 (Apr. 27, 2015). 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the docket. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony (Ted) Gardella 

(Gardella.anthony@epa.gov), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3892. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following table of contents describes the 

format for the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section: 

I. What action is the EPA proposing today? 

II. Which provision of the State sewage 

sludge incineration (SSI) plan is EPA 

withdrawing approval of? 

III. Why is the EPA taking this action? 

IV. Who is affected by the State SSI plan and 

the amendment to the State SSI plan? 

V. What is the background for New York 

State’s request to amend the State SSI 

plan? 

VI. What approval criteria did we use to 

evaluate New York State’s January 2015 

request to amend the State SSI plan? 

VII. What is the EPA’s conclusion? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is the EPA proposing 

today? 

The EPA is proposing to withdraw its 

prior approval of an affirmative defense 

provision in New York State’s SSI plan, 

based on a request submitted on January 

27, 2015, by New York State. New York 

State submitted the State SSI plan for 

EPA approval on July 1, 2013 to fulfill 

the requirements of section 111(d) and 

129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 

EPA approved the proposed State SSI 

plan on June 11, 2014 (79 FR 33456). 

The State SSI plan adopts and 

implements the emission guidelines 

(EG) set forth at Title 40 part 60 subpart 

MMMM of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) and is applicable to 

existing SSI units and establishes air 

emission limits and other requirements. 

Existing SSI units are units constructed 

on or before October 14, 2010. 

II. Which provision of the State SSI 

plan is EPA withdrawing approval of? 

New York State is requesting that the 

EPA withdraw its approval of a 

provision in the State SSI plan that 

allows for an affirmative defense by an 

owner/operator of an SSI unit for 

violations of air emissions or other 

requirements of the State’s plan in the 

event of malfunction(s) of an SSI unit. 

The EPA’s proposed withdrawal of its 

prior approval, once finalized and 

effective, will result in the removal of 

the affirmative defense provisions from 

the federally-enforceable State SSI plan 

while maintaining the federal 

enforceability of the remainder of the 

State SSI plan for covered SSI units 

located in New York State. 

III. Why is the EPA taking this action? 

The EPA has determined that New 

York State’s request that EPA withdraw 

approval of the affirmative defense 

provision in the State SSI plan meets all 

applicable requirements and therefore 

the EPA is proposing to withdraw its 

approval of that provision. 

IV. Who is affected by the State SSI 

plan and the amendment to the State 

SSI plan? 

The State SSI plan regulates all the 

units designated by the EG for existing 

SSI units and which are located at a 

wastewater treatment facility designed 

to treat domestic sewage sludge. If the 

owner or operator of a covered SSI unit 

made changes after September 21, 2011, 

that meet the definition of modification 

(see 40 CFR 60.5250), the SSI unit 

would become subject to 40 CFR part 60 

subpart LLLL (New Source Performance 

Standards for New Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units), and the State SSI 

plan would no longer apply to that unit. 

V. What is the background for New 

York State’s request to amend the State 

SSI plan? 

In an April 18, 2014 opinion, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) 

vacated an affirmative defense in one of 

the EPA’s Section 112 regulations. 

NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 

2014) (vacating affirmative defense 

provisions in Section 112 rule 

establishing emission standards for 

Portland cement kilns). The court found 

that the EPA lacked authority to 

establish an affirmative defense for 

private civil suits and held that under 

the CAA, the authority to determine 

civil penalty amounts in such cases lies 

exclusively with the courts, not the 

EPA. The vacated affirmative defense 

provision in the EPA’s Portland cement 

MACT rule is identical to the 

affirmative defense provision in the 

EPA’s SSI EG, promulgated on March 

21, 2011, under sections 111(d) and 129 

of the CAA, at § 60.5181 (‘‘How do I 

establish an affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or 

standard during a malfunction?’’). New 

York’s State SSI plan adopted by 

reference all the applicable 

requirements of the EPA’s SSI EG, 

including the affirmative defense 

provisions at § 60.5181, into its State 

plan at Part 200 of Title 6 of the New 

York Code of Rules and Regulations 

(6NYCRR) of the State of New York, 

entitled ‘‘General Provisions.’’ 

Because of the April 2014 D.C. Court 

vacatur referred to above, New York 

State submitted its January 27, 2015 

letter requesting that EPA withdraw its 

approval of the affirmative defense 

provision as part of the State SSI plan 

submitted to the EPA for approval on 

July 1, 2013.1 Consequently, the EPA is 

proposing to withdraw its prior 

approval of that particular provision of 

the State SSI plan as discussed herein. 

VI. What approval criteria did we use 

to evaluate New York State’s January 

2015 request to amend the State SSI 

plan? 

The EPA reviewed New York State’s 

request against the applicable 

requirements of section 129(b)(2) of the 

CAA. To ensure consistency, the EPA 

reviewed New York State’s request 

against the proposed Federal SSI plan, 

discussed in footnote 1 of this notice, 

which does not include an affirmative 

defense to violations that result from 

malfunctions. 

VII. What is the EPA’s conclusion? 

The EPA has determined that New 

York State’s SSI plan will continue to 

meet all the applicable approval criteria 

if EPA withdraws its approval of the 

affirmative defense provision. First, the 

removal of the affirmative defense 

provision is consistent with the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, as 

described above. Second, a state plan 

must be at least as protective as the 

emissions guidelines promulgated by 

the EPA, and the removal of the 

affirmative defense provision from the 

approved state plan does not render the 

plan less protective, as it removes a 

potential defense to a violation resulting 

from a malfunction. Therefore, the EPA 

is proposing to withdraw its approval of 

that provision of the plan, which the 

EPA approved on June 11, 2014 (79 FR 

33456) as part of New York’s sections 

111(d) and 129 State SSI plan for 

existing sewage sludge incineration 

units. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan 

submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, 

in reviewing 111(d)/129 plan 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51172 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 

this action merely approves 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide 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). 

The 111(d)/129 plan is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian Nation Land, the rule does not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Aluminum, 

Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental 

relations, Paper and paper products 

industry, Phosphate, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Sulfur acid plants, Waste 

treatment and disposal. 

Dated: August 13, 2015. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20904 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R04–RCRA–2015–0294; FRL–9932– 

92–Region 4] 

North Carolina: Final Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: North Carolina has applied to 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) for final authorization of changes 

to its hazardous waste program under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). These changes 

correspond to certain Federal rules 

promulgated between July 1, 2008 and 

June 30, 2014 (also known as RCRA 

Clusters XIX through XXIII). With this 

proposed rule, EPA is proposing to grant 

final authorization to North Carolina for 

these changes. 

DATES: Send your written comments by 

September 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

RCRA–2015–0294, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: gleaton.gwen@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (404) 562–9964 (prior to 

faxing, please notify the EPA contact 

listed below). 

• Mail: Send written comments to 

Gwendolyn Gleaton, RCRA Programs 

and Materials Management Section, 

Materials and Waste Management 

Branch, Resource Conservation and 

Restoration Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 

8960. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Gwendolyn Gleaton, 

RCRA Programs and Materials 

Management Section, Materials and 

Waste Management Branch, Resource 

Conservation and Restoration Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 

8960. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Please see the direct final rule in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gwendolyn Gleaton, RCRA Programs 

and Materials Management Section, 

Materials and Waste Management 

Branch, Resource Conservation and 

Restoration Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 

8960; telephone number: (404) 562– 

8500; fax number: (404) 562–9964; 

email address: gleaton.gwen@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Along 

with this proposed rule, EPA is 

publishing a direct final rule in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register pursuant to 

which EPA is authorizing these changes. 

EPA did not issue a proposed rule 

before today because EPA believes this 

action is not controversial and does not 

expect comments that oppose it. EPA 

has explained the reasons for this 

authorization in the direct final rule. 

Unless EPA receives written comments 

that oppose this authorization during 

the comment period, the direct final 

rule in today’s Federal Register will 

become effective on the date it 

establishes, and EPA will not take 

further action on this proposal. If EPA 

receives comments that oppose this 

action, EPA will withdraw the direct 

final rule and it will not take effect. EPA 

will then respond to public comments 

in a later final rule based on this 

proposed rule. You may not have 

another opportunity to comment on 

these State program changes. If you 

want to comment on this action, you 

must do so at this time. For additional 

information, please see the direct final 

rule published in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register. 

Dated: June 26, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20908 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS