Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55061 

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 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 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 1, 2015. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2015–23075 Filed 9–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 70 

[Regional Docket No. II–2012–01; FRL– 

9933–81–Region 2] 

Petition for Objection to State 

Operating Permit; NY; Seneca Energy 

II, LLC 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final action. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Clean Air Act 

(CAA) Section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR 

70.8(d), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an 

Order, dated June 29, 2015, granting in 

part and denying in part a petition filed 

by Gary A. Abraham on behalf of Finger 

Lakes Zero Waste Coalition, Inc. (dated 

December 22, 2012) asking the EPA to 

object to the Title V operating permit 

(Permit No. 8–3244–00040/00002) 

issued by the New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (DEC) to Seneca Energy II, 

LLC (Seneca) relating to the Ontario 

County Landfill Gas-to-Energy Facility 

(Facility) in western New York. Sections 

307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide 

that the petitioner may ask for judicial 

review by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the appropriate circuit of 

those portions of the Order that deny 

objections raised in the petition. 

DATES: Any such petition for review of 

this Order must be received by 

November 13, 2015 pursuant to section 

307(b) of the CAA. 

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of 

the final Order, the petitions, and other 

supporting information during normal 

business hours at EPA Region 2, 290 

Broadway, New York, New York. If you 

wish to examine these documents, you 

should make an appointment at least 24 

hours before the visiting day. 

Additionally, the final Order is available 

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

region7/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/

seneca_response2012.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Riva, Chief, Permitting Section, 

Air Programs Branch, Clean Air and 

Sustainability Division, EPA, Region 2, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007, telephone (212) 637– 

4074, email address: Riva.Steven@

epa.gov, or the above EPA Region 2 

address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA 

affords the EPA a 45-day period to 

review, and object to, as appropriate, a 

title V operating permit proposed by a 

state permitting authority. Section 

505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any 

person to petition the EPA 

Administrator, within 60 days after the 

expiration of this review period, to 

object to a Title V operating permit if 

the EPA has not done so. 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 that the 

grounds for the objection or other issues 

arose after this period. The claims are 

described in detail in Section IV of the 

Order. In summary, the issues raised are 

that: (1) The Title V permit does not 

consider the Ontario County Landfill 

(Landfill) and the Facility a single 

source even though they together meet 

the 3-factor source determination test; 

and (2) the Facility’s Title V permit is 

a ‘‘sham permit.’’ The EPA’s rationale 

for partially granting and partially 

denying the claims raised in the petition 

are described in the Order. 

Dated: August 26, 2015. 

Catherine McCabe, 

Deputy Regional Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–23076 Filed 9–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9933–86–OAR] 

40 CFR Part 97 

Allocations of Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule Allowances From New 

Unit Set-Asides for 2015 Control 

Periods 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of data availability 

(NODA). 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the 

availability of preliminary lists of units 

eligible for allocations of emission 

allowances under the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Under the 

CSAPR federal implementation plans 

(FIPs), portions of each covered state’s 

annual emissions budgets for each of the 

four CSAPR emissions trading programs 

are reserved for allocation to electricity 

generating units that commenced 

commercial operation on or after 

January 1, 2010 (new units) and certain 

other units not otherwise obtaining 

allowance allocations under the FIPs. 

The quantities of allowances allocated 

to eligible units from each new unit setaside (NUSA) under the FIPs are 

calculated in an annual one- or tworound allocation process. EPA 

previously completed the first round of 

NUSA allowance allocations for the 

2015 control periods for all four CSAPR 

trading programs and is now making 

available preliminary lists of units 

eligible for allocations in the second 

round of the NUSA allocation process 

for the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Trading Program. EPA has posted a 

spreadsheet containing the preliminary 

lists on EPA’s Web site. EPA will 

consider timely objections to the lists of 

eligible units contained in the 

spreadsheet and will promulgate a 

document responding to any such 

objections no later than November 15, 

2015, the deadline for recording the 

second-round allocations of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances in 

sources’ Allowance Management 

System accounts. This notice of 

availability may concern CSAPRaffected units in the following states: 

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55062 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1The latest spreadsheet of CSAPR FIP allowance 

allocations to existing units, updated in 2014 to 

reflect changes to CSAPR’s implementation 

schedule but with allocation amounts unchanged 

since June 2012, is available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

crossstaterule/actions.html. See Availability of Data 

on Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

Allowances to Existing Electricity Generating Units, 

79 FR 71674 (December 3, 2014). 

2The NUSA amounts range from two percent to 

eight percent of the respective state budgets. The 

variation in percentages reflects differences among 

states in the quantities of emission allowances 

projected to be required by known new units at the 

time the budgets were set or amended. 

3 80 FR 30988 (June 1, 2015); 80 FR 44882 (July 

28, 2015). 

4At this time, EPA is not aware of any unit 

eligible for a second-round allocation from any 

Indian country NUSA. 

5The quantities of allowances to be allocated 

through the NUSA allowance allocation process 

may differ slightly from the NUSA amounts set 

forth in §§ 97.410(a), 97.510(a), 97.610(a), and 

97.710(a) because of rounding in the spreadsheet of 

CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units. 

6See 40 CFR 97.511(c). 

Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, 

Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New 

York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

DATES: Objections to the information 

referenced in this notice of availability 

must be received on or before October 

14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your objections via 

email to CSAPR_NUSA@epa.gov. 

Include ‘‘2015 NUSA allocations’’ in the 

email subject line and include your 

name, title, affiliation, address, phone 

number, and email address in the body 

of the email. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions concerning this action should 

be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 

343–9077 or miller.robertl@epa.gov or 

Kenon Smith at (202) 343–9164 or 

smith.kenon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

CSAPR FIPs, the mechanisms by which 

initial allocations of emission 

allowances are determined differ for 

‘‘existing’’ and ‘‘new’’ units. For 

‘‘existing’’ units—that is, units 

commencing commercial operation 

before January 1, 2010—the specific 

amounts of CSAPR FIP allowance 

allocations for all control periods have 

been established through rulemaking. 

EPA has announced the availability of 

spreadsheets showing the CSAPR FIP 

allowance allocations to existing units 

in previous notices of availability.1

‘‘New’’ units—that is, units 

commencing commercial operation on 

or after January 1, 2010—as well as 

certain older units that would not 

otherwise obtain FIP allowance 

allocations do not have pre-established 

allowance allocations. Instead, the 

CSAPR FIPs reserve a portion of each 

state’s total annual emissions budget for 

each CSAPR emissions trading program 

as a new unit set-aside (NUSA) 2 and 

establish an annual process for 

allocating NUSA allowances to eligible 

units. States with Indian country within 

their borders have separate Indian 

country NUSAs. The annual process for 

allocating allowances from the NUSAs 

and Indian country NUSAs to eligible 

units is set forth in the CSAPR 

regulations at 40 CFR 97.411(b) and 

97.412 (NOX Annual Trading Program), 

97.511(b) and 97.512 (NOX Ozone 

Season Trading Program), 97.611(b) and 

97.612 (SO2 Group 1 Trading Program), 

and 97.711(b) and 97.712 (SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program). Each NUSA 

allowance allocation process involves 

up to two rounds of allocations to new 

units followed by the allocation to 

existing units of any allowances not 

allocated to new units. EPA provides 

public notice at certain points in the 

process. 

EPA has already completed the first 

round of allocations of 2015 NUSA 

allowances for all four CSAPR trading 

programs, as announced in notices of 

availability previously published in the 

Federal Register.3 The first-round 

NUSA allocation process was discussed 

in those previous notices of availability. 

In the case of second-round 

allocations of NUSA allowances, the 

annual allocations for the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Trading Program occur 

before the annual allocations for the 

other three CSAPR trading programs 

because of differences in the emissions 

reporting and compliance deadlines for 

the various programs. This notice of 

availability concerns the second round 

of NUSA allowance allocations for the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading 

Program for the 2015 control period.4

The units eligible to receive secondround NUSA allocations for the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program are 

defined in §§ 97.511(a)(1)(iii) and 

97.512(a)(9)(i). Generally, eligible units 

include any CSAPR-affected unit that 

commenced commercial operation 

between May 1 of the year before the 

control period in question and August 

31 of the year of the control period in 

question. In the case of the 2015 control 

period, an eligible unit therefore must 

have commenced commercial operation 

between May 1, 2014 and August 31, 

2015 (inclusive). 

The total quantity of allowances to be 

allocated through the 2015 NUSA 

allowance allocation process for each 

state and emissions trading program—in 

the two rounds of the allocation process 

combined—is generally the state’s 2015 

emissions budget less the sum of (1) the 

total of the 2015 CSAPR FIP allowance 

allocations to existing units and (2) the 

amount of the 2015 Indian country 

NUSA, if any.5 The amounts of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season NUSA allowances 

may be increased in certain 

circumstances as set forth in 

§ 97.512(a)(2). 

Second-round NUSA allocations for a 

given state, trading program, and control 

period are made only if the NUSA 

contains allowances after completion of 

the first-round allocations. 

The amounts of second-round CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowance 

allocations to eligible new units from 

each NUSA are calculated according to 

the procedures set forth in 

§ 97.512(a)(9), (10) and (12). Generally, 

the procedures call for each eligible unit 

to receive a second-round 2015 NUSA 

allocation equal to the positive 

difference, if any, between its emissions 

during the 2015 NOX ozone season (i.e., 

May 1, 2015 through September 30, 

2015) as reported under 40 CFR part 75 

and any first-round allocation the unit 

received, unless the total of such 

allocations to all eligible units would 

exceed the amount of allowances in the 

NUSA, in which case the allocations are 

reduced on a pro-rata basis. 

Any allowances remaining in the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season NUSA for a 

given state and control period after the 

second round of NUSA allocations to 

new units will be allocated to the 

existing units in the state according to 

the procedures set forth in 

§ 97.512(a)(10) and (12). 

EPA notes that an allocation or lack 

of allocation of allowances to a given 

EGU does not constitute a determination 

that CSAPR does or does not apply to 

the EGU. EPA also notes that allocations 

are subject to potential correction if a 

unit to which NUSA allowances have 

been allocated for a given control period 

is not actually an affected unit as of the 

start of that control period.6

The preliminary lists of units eligible 

for second-round 2015 NUSA 

allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances are set forth in an 

Excel spreadsheet titled ‘‘CSAPR_

NUSA_2015_NOx_OS_2nd_Round_

Prelim_Data’’ available on EPA’s Web 

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

crossstaterule/actions.html. The 

spreadsheet contains a separate 

worksheet for each state covered by that 

program showing each unit 

preliminarily identified as eligible for a 

second-round NUSA allocation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55063 

Each state worksheet also contains a 

summary showing (1) the quantity of 

allowances initially available in that 

state’s 2015 NUSA, (2) the sum of the 

2015 NUSA allowance allocations that 

were made in the first-round to new 

units in that state (if any), and (3) the 

quantity of allowances in the 2015 

NUSA available for distribution in 

second-round allocations to new units 

(or ultimately for allocation to existing 

units). 

Objections should be strictly limited 

to whether EPA has correctly identified 

the new units eligible for second-round 

2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowances according to 

the criteria described above and should 

be emailed to the address identified in 

ADDRESSES. Objections must include: (1) 

Precise identification of the specific 

data the commenter believes are 

inaccurate, (2) new proposed data upon 

which the commenter believes EPA 

should rely instead, and (3) the reasons 

why EPA should rely on the 

commenter’s proposed data and not the 

data referenced in this notice of 

availability. 

Authority: 40 CFR 97.511(b). 

Reid P. Harvey, 

Director, Clean Air Markets Division. 

[FR Doc. 2015–22943 Filed 9–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0174; FRL–9932–03– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF56 

Revision of Certain Federal Water 

Quality Criteria Applicable to 

Washington 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to revise the 

current federal Clean Water Act (CWA) 

human health criteria applicable to 

waters under the state of Washington’s 

jurisdiction to ensure that the criteria 

are set at levels that will adequately 

protect Washington residents, including 

tribes with treaty-protected rights, from 

exposure to toxic pollutants. EPA 

promulgated Washington’s existing 

criteria for the protection of human 

health in 1992 as part of the National 

Toxics Rule (NTR), (amended in 1999 

for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)) 

using the Agency’s recommended 

criteria values at the time. EPA derived 

those criteria using a fish consumption 

rate (FCR) of 6.5 grams per day (g/day) 

based on national surveys. However, the 

best available data now demonstrate 

that fish consumers in Washington, 

including tribes with treaty-protected 

rights, consume much more fish than 

6.5 g/day. There are also new data and 

scientific information available to 

update the toxicity and exposure 

parameters used to calculate human 

health criteria. Therefore, EPA proposes 

to revise the federal human health 

criteria applicable to waters under 

Washington’s jurisdiction to take into 

account the best available science, 

including local and regional 

information, as well as applicable EPA 

policies, guidance, and legal 

requirements, to protect human health. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2015–0174, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. 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. 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, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erica Fleisig, Office of Water, Standards 

and Health Protection Division (4305T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

566–1057; email address: fleisig.erica@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

Does this action apply to me? 

II. Background 

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

B. General Recommended Approach for 

Deriving Human Health Criteria 

III. Necessity Determination for Washington 

A. Existing Criteria Are Not Protective of 

Designated Uses of Waters in the State of 

Washington 

B. CWA 303(c)(4)(B) Determination of 

Necessity 

IV. Derivation of Human Health Criteria for 

Washington 

A. Tribal Reserved Fishing Rights and 

Washington’s Designated Uses 

B. Scope of EPA’s Proposal 

C. Washington-Specific Human Health 

Criteria Inputs 

D. Proposed Human Health Criteria for 

Washington 

E. Applicability of Criteria When Final 

F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and 

Implementation Mechanisms 

V. Economic Analysis 

A. Identifying Affected Entities 

B. Method for Estimating Costs 

C. Results 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations) 

I. General Information 

Does this action apply to me? 

Entities such as industries, 

stormwater management districts, or 

publicly owned treatment works 

(POTWs) that discharge pollutants to 

waters of the United States under the 

state of Washington’s jurisdiction could 

be indirectly affected by this 

rulemaking, because federal water 

quality standards (WQS) promulgated 

by EPA would be applicable to CWA 

regulatory programs, such as National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permitting. Citizens concerned 

with water quality in Washington could 

also be interested in this rulemaking. 

Categories and entities that could 

potentially be affected include the 

following: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS