Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42679 

and control of the engine power, from 

30 seconds to 2.5 minutes. FAA 

proposes special conditions based on 

§ 33.28(k) requirements of amendment 

33–26, which are the same as those of 

§ 33.67(d) amendment 33–18. 

• Special conditions are required to 

account for the proposed rating of 2.5 

minutes time duration during the 

endurance test conduct. For the 30- 

second and 2-minute OEI the test 

schedule of § 33.87(f) is divided among 

the two ratings. 

We propose special conditions by 

revising the requirements of § 33.87(f) to 

ensure the test will be run for 2.5 

minutes duration with no interruption. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to GE’s CT7– 

2E1 turboshaft engines. If GE applies 

later for a change to the type certificate 

to include another closely related model 

incorporating the same novel or unusual 

design feature, these special conditions 

would apply to that model as well, 

providing the certification basis is the 

same or contains later amendments that 

satisfy the certification basis discussed 

in the section titled ‘‘Type Certification 

Basis’’. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on the CT7– 

2E1 turboshaft engine. It is not a rule of 

general applicability, and it applies only 

to GE, who requested FAA approval of 

this engine feature. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 33 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 

44702, 44704. 

The Proposed Special Conditions 

Accordingly, the FAA proposes the 

following special conditions as part of 

the type certification basis for GE CT7– 

2E1 turboshaft engine. 

1. Part 1 Definitions 

Unless otherwise approved by the 

Administrator and documented in the 

appropriate manuals and certification 

documents, the following definition 

applies to this special condition: ‘‘Rated 

flat 30-second and 2-minute One Engine 

Inoperative (OEI) Power,’’ with respect 

to rotorcraft turbine engines, means (1) 

a rating for which the shaft horsepower 

and associated operating limitations of 

the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI 

ratings are equal, and (2) the shaft 

horsepower is that developed under 

static conditions at the altitude and 

temperature for the hot day, and within 

the operating limitations established 

under part 33. The rating is for 

continuation of flight operation after the 

failure or shutdown of one engine in 

multiengine rotorcraft, for up to three 

periods of use no longer than 2.5 

minutes each in any one flight, and 

followed by mandatory inspection and 

prescribed maintenance action. 

2. Part 33 Requirements 

(a) In addition to the airworthiness 

standards in the type certification basis 

applicable to the engine and the 30- 

second and 2-minute OEI ratings, the 

special conditions in this section apply. 

(b) Section 33.7 Engine ratings and 

operating limitations. Flat 30-second 

and 2-minute OEI rating and operating 

limitations are established by power, 

torque, rotational speed, gas 

temperature, and time duration. 

(c) Section 33.27. Turbine, 

compressor, fan, and turbosupercharger 

rotor overspeed. The requirements 

applicable to 21⁄2 minute OEI rating, 

except that following the test, the rotor 

may not exhibit conditions such as 

cracking or distortion which preclude 

continued safe operation. 

(d) Section 33.28 Engine controls 

systems. Must incorporate a means, or a 

provision for a means, for automatic 

availability and automatic control of the 

flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI power 

for the duration of 2.5 minutes and 

within the declared operating 

limitations. 

(e) Section 33.87 Endurance test. The 

requirements applicable to 30-second 

and 2-minute OEI rating, except for: 

(1) The test of § 33.87(a)(7) as 

applicable to the 21⁄2 minute OEI rating. 

Note to paragraph (e)(1): For the 

purpose of temperature stabilization, the 

test period time is 2.5 minutes. 

(2) The tests in § 33.87(f)(2) and (3) 

must be run continuously for the 

duration of 2.5 minutes, and 

(3) The tests in § 33.87(f)(6) and (7) 

must be run continuously for the 

duration of 2.5 minutes. 

(f) Section 33.88 Engine 

overtemperature test. The requirements 

of § 33.88(c) except that the test time is 

5 minutes instead of 4 minutes. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

June 28, 2012. 

Robert J. Ganley, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17560 Filed 7–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 9 and 122 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2011–0188; FRL–9693–5] 

RIN 2040–AF22 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) 

Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operation (CAFO) Reporting Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; Withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: On October 21, 2011, the EPA 

proposed a rulemaking to improve and 

restore water quality by collecting 

certain information about concentrated 

animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The 

EPA also solicited comments on 

improving water quality by promoting 

environmental stewardship and 

compliance rather than collecting 

facility-specific information. The EPA is 

withdrawing the proposal to collect 

CAFO information by rule. Instead, the 

EPA, where appropriate, will collect 

CAFO information using existing 

sources of information, including state 

NPDES programs, other regulations, and 

other programs at the federal, state, and 

local level. The EPA believes, at this 

time, it is more appropriate to obtain 

CAFO information by working with 

federal, state, and local partners instead 

of requiring CAFO information to be 

submitted pursuant to a rule. Today’s 

withdrawal does not preclude the 

Agency from initiating the same or 

similar rulemaking at a future date. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., confidential 

business information (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. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/ 

DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20004. The Public Reading Room is 

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

Monday through Friday, excluding 

federal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Water Docket is (202) 566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information, contact Becky 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42680 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Mitschele, Water Permits Division, 

Office of Wastewater Management 

(4203M), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–6418; fax number: 

(202) 564–6384; email address: 

mitschele.becky@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. What entities are potentially interested 

in this action? 

B. Legal Authority 

II. Background 

III. Summary of Comments Received 

IV. The EPA’s Considerations Since Proposal 

V. The EPA’s Rationale for Withdrawal of the 

Proposed Rule 

VI. Impact Analysis 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

A. What entities are potentially 

interested in this final action? 

Entities potentially interested in this 

final action include animal feeding 

operations (AFOs), including AFOs that 

are CAFOs as defined in the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) regulations at 40 CFR 

122.23(b)(2), pursuant to section 502(14) 

of the Clean Water Act (CWA). An AFO 

is a CAFO if it meets the regulatory 

definition of a Large or Medium CAFO 

(40 CFR 122.23(b)(4) or (6)) or has been 

designated as a CAFO (40 CFR 

122.23(c)) by an authorized state or by 

the EPA. The following table provides 

the size thresholds for Large, Medium, 

and Small CAFOs in each animal sector. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CAFO SIZE THRESHOLDS FOR ALL SECTORS

Sector Large Medium 1 Small 2

Cattle or cow/calf pairs ............................................................................................ 1,000 or more ...... 300–999 ............... Less than 300. 

Mature dairy cattle ................................................................................................... 700 or more ......... 200–699 ............... Less than 200. 

Veal calves ............................................................................................................... 1,000 or more ...... 300–999 ............... Less than 300. 

Swine (weighing over 55 pounds) ........................................................................... 2,500 or more ...... 750–2,499 ............ Less than 750. 

Swine (weighing less than 55 pounds) .................................................................... 10,000 or more .... 3,000–9,999 ......... Less than 3,000. 

Horses ...................................................................................................................... 500 or more ......... 150–499 ............... Less than 150. 

Sheep or lambs ........................................................................................................ 10,000 or more .... 3,000–9,999 ......... Less than 3,000. 

Turkeys .................................................................................................................... 55,000 or more .... 16,500–54,999 ..... Less than 16,500. 

Laying hens or broilers (liquid manure handling system) ........................................ 30,000 or more .... 9,000–29,999 ....... Less than 9,000. 

Chickens other than laying hens (other than a liquid manure handling system) .... 125,000 or more .. 37,500–124,999 ... Less than 37,500. 

Laying hens (other than a liquid manure handling system) .................................... 82,000 or more .... 25,000–81,999 ..... Less than 25,000. 

Ducks (other than a liquid manure handling system) .............................................. 30,000 or more .... 10,000–29,999 ..... Less than 10,000. 

Ducks (liquid manure handling system) ................................................................... 5,000 or more ...... 1,500–4,999 ......... Less than 1,500. 

Notes: 

1 May be designated or must meet one of the following two criteria to be defined as a Medium CAFO: (1) Discharges pollutants through a manmade device; or (2) directly discharges pollutants into waters of the United States which pass over, across, or through the facility or otherwise 

come into direct contact with the confined animals. 40 CFR 122.23(b)(6). 2 Not a CAFO by regulatory definition, but may be designated as a CAFO on a case-by-case basis. 40 CFR 122.23(b)(9). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive. It provides a guide for 

entities likely to be interested in today’s 

action. If you have questions regarding 

this action, consult the person listed in 

the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. Legal Authority 

This action withdraws the proposed 

NPDES CAFO Reporting Rule. 76 FR 

65431, October 21, 2011. Today’s final 

action is issued pursuant to sections 

301, 304, 305, 308, 309, 402, 501, and 

504 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 

1315, 1318, 1319, 1342, 1361, and 

1364). 

II. Background 

A core provision of the CWA is the 

NPDES permit program which 

authorizes and regulates the discharge 

of pollutants from point sources to 

waters of the United States. 33 U.S.C. 

1342. Section 502(14) of the CWA 

includes ‘‘concentrated animal feeding 

operation’’ (CAFO) in the definition of 

‘‘point source.’’ The EPA initially issued 

national effluent guidelines and 

standards (ELGs) for feedlots on 

February 14, 1974, and NPDES CAFO 

regulations on March 18, 1976. 39 FR 

5704, February 14, 1974; 41 FR 11458, 

March 18, 1976. 

In 2008, the EPA issued revised 

NPDES permitting regulations for 

CAFOs. 73 FR 70418, November 20, 

2008. Subsequently, environmental 

groups and industry filed petitions for 

review of the 2008 rule, which were 

consolidated in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On May 

25, 2010, the EPA signed a settlement 

agreement with the environmental 

petitioners in which the EPA committed 

to propose a rule, pursuant to CWA 

section 308, 33 U.S.C. 1318, to require 

all owners or operators of CAFOs to 

submit certain information to the EPA. 

On October 21, 2011, the EPA 

proposed a rulemaking that contained 

regulatory options for obtaining 

specified information from CAFOs to 

support the EPA in meeting its water 

quality protection responsibilities under 

the CWA. The EPA solicited comment 

on the additional items listed in the 

settlement agreement that the Agency 

did not propose to collect. The EPA also 

requested comment on three alternative 

approaches to improve water quality 

including: Collecting data from existing 

sources, requiring states to submit the 

information to the EPA, and expanding 

the EPA’s network of compliance 

assistance and outreach tools. The 

Federal Register notice contains 

detailed descriptions and a discussion 

of each option proposed. 76 FR 65431, 

October 21, 2011. 

In the settlement agreement, the EPA 

committed to take final action on the 

proposal by July 13, 2012. The 

settlement agreement does not commit 

the EPA to any particular final action. 

The settlement agreement expressly 

states that nothing in the agreement 

shall be construed to limit or modify the 

discretion accorded the EPA by the 

CWA or by general principles of 

administrative law. Today’s final action 

fulfills the Agency’s commitments per 

the settlement agreement with the 

petitioners. 

III. Summary of Comments Received 

The comment period for the proposed 

rule ended on January 19, 2012, and the 

EPA received 1,403 comment letters. 

The commenters on the proposed rule 

included, among others, states, state 

associations, industry organizations, 

environmental advocacy groups, and 

individuals. The public comments and 

the EPA’s supporting documents are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42681 

available in Docket EPA–HQ–OW– 

2011–0188. 

Generally, state and state association 

commenters questioned the need for 

new regulations in light of states already 

having the information the EPA was 

seeking by virtue of existing CAFO 

programs at the state and local level. 

Industry commenters opposed the 

proposed rule arguing, among other 

things, that much of the data had 

already been submitted to the states and 

the EPA and that the information could 

be collected through means other than 

a rule. Environmental advocacy groups 

commented in support of the proposed 

rule and argued that the EPA should 

collect more than the five items of 

information proposed. Individual 

comments ranged from opposition of the 

proposed rule to support of the 

proposed rule. Individuals who opposed 

the proposal commented that it would 

be too burdensome for CAFOs to 

comply with the proposed rule. 

Individuals who supported the proposal 

commented that the proposed rule is 

necessary to implement the CAFO 

program and that more information than 

proposed should be collected from 

CAFOs. 

IV. The EPA’s Considerations Since 

Proposal 

Since the EPA proposed the 

rulemaking on October 21, 2011, the 

EPA conducted a preliminary 

evaluation of information publicly 

available on the Internet from all state 

permitting authorities, expanding on the 

effort the Agency conducted prior to 

proposal. Prior to proposal, the EPA 

evaluated a subset of existing state 

programs and identified publicly 

accessible site-specific information for 

CAFOs. That information informed the 

EPA’s decision to develop the voluntary 

state submission process and the 

alternative approach that relies on 

existing data sources in the proposed 

NPDES CAFO Reporting Rule. 76 FR 

65437, October 21, 2011. The docket 

contains examples of CAFO site-specific 

information that is publicly available on 

the Internet. 

The EPA’s post-proposal evaluation of 

available information included a review 

of 37 state permitting authority Web 

sites to determine if information about 

CAFOs is accessible online. The EPA 

notes that although, at present, there are 

47 states authorized to implement the 

NPDES program, a number of those 

states either have no CAFOs or are not 

authorized to implement the CAFO 

portion of the NPDES program. In states 

where the EPA administers the NPDES 

program for CAFOs, the EPA has 

information for CAFOs with NPDES 

permit coverage from permit 

applications or notices of intent. The 

review of the 37 state permitting Web 

sites yielded information on 7,473 

operations that confine animals. Some 

of the information includes operations 

that are not federally defined as CAFOs 

or operations that are required under 

state law to have state non-NPDES 

permits. The EPA compiled these 

results into a summary report, which 

can be found in the docket. 

In July 2012, the EPA also established 

a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) with the Association of the 

Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) 

that specifically will assist the Agency 

in collecting information about CAFOs. 

ACWA is an independent, nonpartisan, 

non-profit corporation of state and 

interstate water program managers. The 

EPA believes cooperation with the states 

will assist the EPA in obtaining needed 

CAFO information. This collaborative 

effort between the EPA and ACWA will 

focus on identifying CAFOs and assist 

the EPA in obtaining pertinent 

information about CAFOs on a state-bystate basis. 

V. The EPA’s Rationale for Withdrawal 

of the Proposed Rule 

In today’s final action, the EPA has 

chosen not to promulgate a regulation. 

Instead, the EPA is pursuing an 

approach that relies on a range of 

existing sources of information, other 

regulations, and other programs at the 

federal, state, and local level to gather 

basic information about CAFOs. The 

EPA believes at this time it is more 

appropriate to obtain CAFO information 

from existing sources. Some states 

commented that they have the 

information proposed to be collected by 

the rule and expressed interest in 

working with the EPA to exchange that 

information. Since the EPA has 

established relationships with states, as 

well as the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), and other federal 

partners, the EPA believes that working 

through existing partnerships will yield 

timely and useful results in obtaining 

much of the needed CAFO information. 

In developing animal agricultural 

programs since the 2003 CAFO rule, 

states have longstanding relationships 

with owners and operators of operations 

that confine animals. These 

relationships will facilitate information 

sharing between relevant stakeholders. 

CAFOs play an important role in 

water quality planning, due to the fact 

that they are potential sources of 

nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, and 

other pollutants. The EPA continues to 

believe that the gathering and evaluating 

of information about CAFOs can assist 

local, state, and federal governments, 

regulated entities, interest groups, and 

the public in making more informed 

decisions toward meeting the objective 

of the CWA to ‘‘restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’ 33 

U.S.C. 1251(a). EPA explained how 

information about CAFOs would assist 

in implementation of CWA programs in 

the proposed rule. 76 FR 65436, October 

21, 2011. Through the approach 

outlined in this notice, the EPA will 

seek to collect CAFO information items 

listed in the proposed rule, as well as 

other information that is available from 

existing resources, which includes 

continuing to work with USDA, USGS, 

and other agencies to address sources of 

nutrient pollution. 

Based on the comments received, the 

EPA believes that it can obtain much of 

the desired CAFO information from 

federal agencies, states, and other 

existing data sources. The EPA noted in 

the proposal that the existing NPDES 

permitting program requires CAFOs 

with NPDES permit coverage to submit 

information as part of the application 

process as well as in annual reports. 76 

FR 65439, October 21, 2011. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 122.21(i), information on a 

CAFO permit application must include 

the following: (1) Name of the owner or 

operator, (2) facility location and 

mailing address, (3) latitude and 

longitude of the production area 

(entrance of the production area), (4) a 

topographic map of the geographic area 

in which the CAFO is located showing 

the specific location of the production 

area, (5) specific information about the 

number and type of animals, whether in 

open confinement or housed under roof, 

(6) the type of containment and storage 

and total capacity for manure, litter, or 

process wastewater, (7) the total number 

of acres under control of the applicant 

available for land application of 

manure, litter, or process wastewater, 

(8) estimated amounts of manure, litter, 

and process wastewater generated per 

year, (9) estimated amounts of manure, 

litter, and process wastewater 

transferred to other persons per year, 

and (10) a nutrient management plan 

that at a minimum satisfies the 

requirements specified in 40 CFR 

122.42(e), including, for all CAFOs 

subject to the effluent limitations and 

standards, the requirements of 40 CFR 

412.4(c), as applicable. Also, pursuant 

to 40 CFR 123.24(b)(3), a memorandum 

of agreement between State Directors 

and the Regional Administrators 

specifies the frequency and content of 

reports, documents, and other 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42682 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

information which the state is required 

to submit to the EPA. States are required 

to allow the EPA to routinely review 

state records, reports, and files relevant 

to the administration and enforcement 

of the approved program. See also 40 

CFR 123.41, 40 CFR 123.43. Because 

these two provisions are part of the 

NPDES program, the EPA believes, at 

this time, NPDES authorized states have 

basic information from the permit 

application for at least those CAFOs 

with NPDES permit coverage, and that 

states will share that information with 

the EPA. In states where the EPA 

administers the NPDES program for 

CAFOs, the EPA has information for 

CAFOs with NPDES permit coverage 

from permit applications or notices of 

intent. 

The EPA believes an efficient 

approach that does not duplicate efforts 

is the appropriate next step to collecting 

CAFO information. Thus, the EPA 

believes that before determining 

whether to issue a rule requiring CAFOs 

to submit information, the Agency 

should obtain existing information from 

federal agencies, states, local partners, 

and other resources that already collect 

data. This decision also recognizes that 

many CAFOs have provided their 

information to some governmental 

entity, although perhaps not to the EPA. 

While the EPA may not be the entity 

that received the information initially, it 

is reasonable at this time for the EPA to 

work with its federal, state, and local 

partners to obtain existing information 

rather than asking CAFOs to re-submit 

information that they have already 

submitted to another governmental 

entity. Collecting existing information, 

evaluating it, and compiling it in one 

format will better inform the Agency of 

what additional information may be 

needed and the best way to collect that 

information, if necessary. 

Continued implementation of the 

permitting program for CAFOs likely 

will result in improvements in data 

tracking and availability and analysis of 

CAFO information. For example, some 

states with established programs have 

comprehensive data on CAFOs. The 

EPA described existing data sources in 

the proposed CAFO Reporting Rule, of 

which state permitting authorities are 

just one source. In addition to working 

with the state permitting authorities to 

exchange information mainly on CAFOs 

with NPDES permit coverage, the EPA 

may need to use other existing sources 

of data to obtain information about 

CAFOs without NPDES permit coverage. 

The EPA acknowledges some states will 

have information about CAFOs without 

NPDES permit coverage through other 

state programs, such as state operating 

permits. To fill in information gaps, the 

Agency may use existing tools, such as 

site visits and individual information 

collection requests. 

At this time, the EPA has concluded 

that working with USDA and states, 

who maintain direct relationships with 

CAFO owners or operators is an 

effective approach to obtaining CAFO 

information that will minimize the 

burden on states and CAFOs. 

VI. Impact Analysis 

Because the EPA is not promulgating 

a regulatory reporting requirement, 

there are no compliance costs or 

impacts associated with today’s final 

action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Today’s action does not establish new 

regulatory requirements. Hence, the 

requirements of other regulatory statutes 

and Executive Orders that generally 

apply to rulemakings (e.g., the 

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act) do not 

apply to this action. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 9 

Environmental protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 122 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Hazardous substances, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

Dated: July 13, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17772 Filed 7–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0343; FRL–9701–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; Alabama; 

Disapproval of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

Infrastructure Requirement for the 

1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a portion of the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, 

submitted by the State of Alabama, 

through the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (ADEM), 

on July 25, 2008, and on September 23, 

2009, to demonstrate that the State 

meets requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. Specifically, EPA 

is proposing to disapprove sub-element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) that requires the State to 

comply with section 128 of the CAA. 

EPA is taking a separate action to 

address all the other infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0343 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0343, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 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 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0343.’’ 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 through 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS