### 70727 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules

26 Nebraska’s SIP submission appears to rely on EPA’s 2011 air quality modeling because at that time, the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA held that EPA must first quantify each state’s transport obligation before states had an obligation to make a SIP submission. See 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Nebraska cites a November 19, 2012, memorandum from Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy, which describes the D.C. Circuit’s holding that ‘‘a SIP cannot be deemed deficient for failing to meet the good neighbor obligation before the EPA quantifies that obligation.’’ See Memo at 2, available at http://www3.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/ CSAPR

_Memo

_to

_Regions.pdf. The memorandum also communicated the Agency’s intentions to ‘‘act in accordance with the [D.C. Circuit] decision during the pendency of the appeal,’’ id., but on appeal the Supreme Court reversed that holding. See EPA v. EME Homer City Gen., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1609–10 (2014). contribute 0.8 ppb or more to 8-hour ozone nonattainment or maintenance in another state are identified as states with contributions to downwind attainment and maintenance sites large enough to warrant further analysis.’’ Nebraska noted that 0.8 ppb cutoff equates to a one percent threshold, which was the threshold EPA used in that rulemaking for the previous 1997 ozone NAAQS. According to Nebraska, the rule stands for the proposition that ‘‘states whose contributions are below these thresholds do not significantly contribute or interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS.’’ Nebraska noted that, pursuant to the modeling discussed in that rule (76 FR 48245), Nebraska’s largest downwind contribution to any identified nonattainment or maintenance receptors for ozone was 0.2 ppb. Nebraska concluded that because this modeling contribution represents far less than one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at issue here, it ‘‘does not have any obligations’’ to reduce emissions to address interstate transport as to that standard.

The EPA notes that the modeling Nebraska relies upon was conducted by EPA in 2011, for purposes of evaluating upwind state contributions and downwind air quality problems as to a prior, less-stringent ozone NAAQS, and that the modeling evaluated a 2012 compliance year. Accordingly, the fact that this modeling showed downwind contribution less than one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS is not necessarily dispositive of Nebraska’s obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 26 However, as discussed above, the EPA has conducted more updated modeling subsequent to the state’s SIP submission that confirms the underlying conclusion of our 2011 modeling, and of Nebraska’s SIP submission.

Based on the modeling data and the information and analysis provided in Nebraska’s SIP, EPA is proposing to approve Nebraska’s interstate transport SIP for purposes of meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements as to the 2008 ozone standard. The EPA’s modeling confirms the results of the State’s analysis: Nebraska does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard in any other state. V. What action is EPA proposing?

Based upon review of the state’s infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O 3 NAAQS, with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in these submissions or referenced in Nebraska’s SIP, EPA is proposing to approve this element of the February 11, 2013 SIP submission.

We are hereby soliciting comment on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any
comments. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 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 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). Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 2, 2015. Mark Hague, Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2015–28908 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 62**

**[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0701; FRL–9936–95– Region 5]** 

**Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Sewage Sludge Incinerators State Plan and**  **Small Municipal Waste Combustors Negative Declaration for Designated**  **Facilities and Pollutants**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve


### 70728 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Michigan‘s State Plan to control air pollutants from Sewage Sludge Incinerators (SSI). The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality submitted the State Plan on September 21, 2015, following the required public process. The State Plan is consistent with the Emission Guidelines promulgated by EPA on March 21, 2011. This approval means that EPA finds that the State Plan meets applicable Clean Air Act requirements for subject SSI units. Once effective, this approval also makes the State Plan Federally enforceable. EPA is also announcing that we have received from Michigan a negative declaration for Small Municipal Waste Combustors (SMWC). The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality submitted on July 27, 2015 a negative declaration certifying that there are no SMWC units currently operating in the state of Michigan.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2015–0071, by one of the following methods:

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

2. Email: nwia.jacqueline@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2566.
4. Mail: Jacqueline Nwia, Acting Chief, Toxics and Global Atmosphere Section, Air Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

5. Hand Delivery: Jacqueline Nwia, Acting Chief, Toxics and Global Atmosphere Section, Air Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit
comments.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Margaret Sieffert, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AT–18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–1151, sieffert.margaret@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  In the Rules section of this Federal Register

, EPA is approving through a direct final rulemaking Michigan’s State Plan for control of air pollutants from SSI sources, and is amending 40 CFR part 62 to reflect the State’s submittal of the negative declaration as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, we will withdraw the direct final rule and will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, and if that provision can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register

.

Dated: October 29, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015–28910 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES** 

**45 CFR Part 1329**

**RIN 0985–AA10**

**Independent Living Services and Centers for Independent Living** 

**AGENCY :**  Administration for Community Living, HHS.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This proposed rule would implement the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act enacted on July 22, 2014 and reflects the transfer of Independent Living Services and Centers for Independent Living programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services. The previous regulations were issued by the Department of Education. This proposed rule will consolidate the Independent Living (IL) regulations into a single part, align the regulations with the current statute and HHS policies, and will provide guidance to IL grantees.

**DATES :**  Comments are due on or before January 15, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may submit comments in one of following ways (no duplicates, please): Written comments may be submitted through any of the methods specified below. Please do not submit duplicate comments.

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: You may (and we encourage you to) submit electronic comments on this regulation
at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions under the ‘‘submit a comment’’ tab. Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.

• Regular, Express, or Overnight Mail: You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Administration for Community Living, Attention: IL NPRM, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

• Individuals with a Disability: We will provide an appropriate accommodation, including alternative formats, upon request. To make such arequest, please contact Marlina MosesGaither, (202) 357–3552 (Voice) or at marlina.moses-gaither@acl.hhs.gov.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Molly Burgdorf, Administration for Community Living, telephone (202) 357–3411 (Voice). This is not a toll-free number.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
I. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (‘‘WIOA,’’ Pub. L. 113– 128), signed into law on July 22, 2014, included significant changes to title VII of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. WIOA transfers the Independent Living Services and Centers for Independent Living programs authorized under chapter 1, title VII of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act or Act), as amended by WIOA (Pub. L. 113–128) from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), U.S. Department of Education (ED), to the Administration for Community Living (ACL), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). WIOA also transferred the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, and the Assistive Technology Act programs to ACL.