Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2012 / Notices 42493 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[Petition IV–2010–4; FRL–9701–1] 

Clean Air Act Operating Permit 

Program; Petition for Objection to 

State Operating Permit for Cash Creek 

Generation, LLC—Cash Creek 

Generation Station; Henderson 

County, KY 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition 

to object to a state operating permit. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Clean Air Act 

(CAA), the EPA Administrator signed an 

Order, dated June 22, 2012, partially 

granting and partially denying a petition 

to object to a CAA merged prevention of 

significant deterioration and title V 

operating permit issued by the Kentucky 

Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) to Cash 

Creek Generation, LLC for its Cash 

Creek Generation Station (Cash Creek) 

located near Owensboro in Henderson 

County, Kentucky. This Order 

constitutes a final action on the petition 

submitted by Environmental Policy & 

Law Center on behalf of Sierra Club, 

Ursuline Sisters of Saint Joseph, and 

Valley Watch (Petitioners) and received 

by EPA on June 18, 2010. A petition for 

judicial review of those parts of the 

Order that deny issues in the petition 

may be filed in the United States Court 

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit 

within 60 days from the date this notice 

is published in the Federal Register. 

DATES: September 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Order, the 

petition, and all pertinent information 

relating thereto are on file at the 

following location: EPA Region 4; Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division; 61 Forsyth Street, SW; Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. The Order is also 

available electronically at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/region07/ 

air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/ 

cashcreek_response2010.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Art 

Hofmeister, Air Permits Section, EPA 

Region 4, at (404) 562–9115 or 

hofmeister.art@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA 

affords EPA a 45-day period to review 

and, as appropriate, the authority to 

object to operating permits proposed by 

state permitting authorities under title V 

of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661–7661f. 

Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 

CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to 

petition the EPA Administrator to object 

to a title V operating permit within 60 

days after the expiration of EPA’s 45- 

day review period if EPA has not 

objected on its own initiative. Petitions 

must be based only on objections to the 

permit that were raised with reasonable 

specificity during the public comment 

period provided by the state, unless the 

petitioner demonstrates that it was 

impracticable to raise these issues 

during the comment period or the 

grounds for the issues arose after this 

period. 

Petitioners submitted a petition 

regarding Cash Creek (received by EPA 

on June 18, 2010), requesting that EPA 

object to the CAA title V operating 

permit (#V–09–006). Petitioners alleged 

that the permit was not consistent with 

the CAA because: (1) KDAQ failed to 

provide an opportunity for meaningful 

public participation; (2) KDAQ’s 

calculation of the proposed facility’s 

potential to emit volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), hydrogen sulfide 

and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

failed to account for full emissions from 

active flaring; (3) the permit’s sourcewide VOC emission limit was not 

enforceable as a practical matter; (4) the 

best available control technology 

(BACT) limits applicable to the flare 

during startup and steady-state 

operations were not supported by a 

proper BACT analysis; (5) the BACT 

limits applicable to the flare did not 

cover shutdown and malfunction 

periods; (6) the applicant incorrectly 

estimated fugitive emissions from 

equipment leaks; (7) KDAQ omitted 

numerous control options and relied on 

a faulty cost-effectiveness analysis in 

selecting BACT for equipment leaks; (8) 

KDAQ improperly determined that the 

source was minor for HAPs; (9) Cash 

Creek’s calculation of particulate matter 

emissions from material handling 

assumed an unreasonably high control 

efficiency for wet suppression control 

methods and used an unreasonably low 

silt loading factor; (10) permit terms and 

conditions governing material handling 

were unenforceably vague and did not 

equate to the assumed control 

efficiencies; and (11) Cash Creek failed 

to perform an adequate ozone impacts 

analysis. 

On June 22, 2012, the Administrator 

issued an Order partially granting and 

partially denying the petition. The 

Order explains EPA’s rationale for 

partially granting and partially denying 

the petition. 

Dated: July 6, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17635 Filed 7–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9699–9] 

Proposed Consent Decree Relating to 

the New Source Performance 

Standards for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent 

decree; request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with of the 

Clean Air Act, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

notice is hereby given of a proposed 

consent decree to settle an action in the 

United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York 

(Environmental Defense Fund v. 

Jackson, Case No. 11 Civ. 04492 (KBF) 

ECF Case) alleging that EPA failed to 

perform its obligations under the Act as 

they relate to the new source 

performance standards (‘‘NSPS’’) for 

municipal solid waste landfills (‘‘MSW 

Landfills’’). The Act requires EPA to 

review, and if appropriate, revise NSPS 

not later than 8 years after their 

promulgation unless EPA determines 

that such review is not appropriate in 

light of readily available information on 

the efficacy of the standard. Under the 

terms of the proposed consent decree, 

EPA agrees that: (1) By May 1, 2013, 

EPA shall: (i) Perform an appropriate 

review and sign for publication one or 

a combination of the following: (A) a 

proposed rule containing revisions to 

the MSW Landfills NSPS; or (B) a 

proposed determination not to revise 

the MSW Landfills NSPS; or (ii) sign for 

publication a determination that review 

is not appropriate; and, (2) if EPA signs 

a proposed rule or a proposed 

determination, then no later than May 1, 

2014, sign one or a combination of the 

following: (i) A final rule containing 

revisions to the MSW Landfills NSPS, 

based on appropriate review; or, (ii) a 

final determination not to revise the 

MSW Landfills NSPS, based on an 

appropriate review. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed consent decree must be 

received by August 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OGC–2012–0490, online at 

www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred 

method); by email to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; by mail to EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by 

hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42494 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2012 / Notices 

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. Comments on a disk or CD– 

ROM should be formatted in Word or 

ASCII file, avoiding the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption, 

and may be mailed to the mailing 

address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard H. Vetter, Air and Radiation 

Law Office, Office of General Counsel, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

at Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Sector Policies and Program 

Division (D205–01) 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone: (919) 541–2127; fax 

number (919) 541–4991; email address: 

vetter.rick@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Settlement Agreement 

This proposed consent decree would 

potentially resolve a law suit filed in the 

U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of New York by the 

Environmental Defense Fund EDF). EDF 

alleges that EPA failed to perform its 

obligations under section 111(b)(1)(B) of 

the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B), as they 

relate to the new source performance 

standards (‘‘NSPS’’) for municipal solid 

waste landfills (‘‘MSW Landfills’’), 40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW (40 CFR 

60.750—60.759). Section 111(b)(1)(B) of 

the Act requires EPA to review, and if 

appropriate, revise NSPS not later than 

8 years after their promulgation unless 

EPA determines that such review is not 

appropriate in light of readily available 

information on the efficacy of the 

standard. Under the terms of the 

proposed consent decree, EPA agrees 

that: (1) By May 1, 2013, EPA shall: (i) 

Perform an appropriate review and sign 

for publication one or a combination of 

the following: (A) a proposed rule 

containing revisions to NSPS Subpart 

WWW; or (B) a proposed determination 

not to revise NSPS Subpart WWW; or 

(ii) sign for publication a determination 

that review is not appropriate; and, (2) 

if EPA signs a proposed rule or a 

proposed determination, then no later 

than May 1, 2014, sign one or a 

combination of the following: (i) A final 

rule containing revisions to NSPS 

Subpart WWW, based on appropriate 

review; or, (ii) a final determination not 

to revise Subpart WWW, based on an 

appropriate review. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, the Agency will accept written 

comments relating to the proposed 

consent decree from persons who were 

not named as parties or intervenors to 

the litigation in question. EPA or the 

Department of Justice may withdraw or 

withhold consent to the proposed 

consent decree if the comments disclose 

facts or considerations that indicate that 

such consent is inappropriate, 

improper, inadequate, or inconsistent 

with the requirements of the Act. Unless 

EPA or the Department of Justice 

determines, based on any comment 

submitted, that consent to this proposed 

consent decree should be withdrawn, 

the terms of the consent decree will be 

affirmed and the consent decree will be 

submitted for entry by the court. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed Consent 

Decree 

A. How can I get a copy of the consent 

decree? 

The official public docket for this 

action (identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OGC–2012–0490) contains a 

copy of the proposed consent decree. 

The official public docket is available 

for public viewing at the Office of 

Environmental Information (OEI) Docket 

in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OEI 

Docket is (202) 566–1752. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through 

www.regulations.gov. You may use the 

www.regulations.gov to submit or view 

public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

system, key in the appropriate docket 

identification number then select 

‘‘search’’. 

It is important to note that EPA’s 

policy is that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing online at www.regulations.gov 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information 

claimed as CBI and other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute 

is not included in the official public 

docket or in the electronic public 

docket. EPA’s policy is that copyrighted 

material, including copyrighted material 

contained in a public comment, will not 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the EPA Docket 

Center. 

B. How and to whom do I submit 

comments? 

You may submit comments as 

provided in the ADDRESSES section. 

Please ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to 

consider these late comments. 

If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name, mailing address, and an email 

address or other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD ROM you submit. This 

ensures that you can be identified as the 

submitter of the comment and allows 

EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot 

read your comment due to technical 

difficulties or needs further information 

on the substance of your comment. Any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket, 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web 

site to submit comments to EPA 

electronically is EPA’s preferred method 

for receiving comments. The electronic 

public docket system is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, which means EPA will 

not know your identity, email address, 

or other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

In contrast to EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s electronic mail (email) 

system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system. If you send an email comment 

directly to the Docket without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address is automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the official public 

docket, and made available in EPA’s 

electronic public docket. 

Dated: July 5, 2012. 

Patricia A. Embrey, 

Acting Associate General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17627 Filed 7–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES