Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10159 

system or otherwise facilitate postage 

corrections to address any postage 

discrepancies as directed by the Postal 

Service no later than 60 days after initial 

notification by the Postal Service, 

subject to the applicable notification 

periods and dispute mechanisms 

available to customers for these 

corrections. Postage Adjustment is 

defined as a difference between the 

postage paid for a service offered by the 

Postal Service and the current 

published/negotiated rate indicating the 

postage due to the Postal Service for the 

weight, packaging, dimensions and zone 

of the mail piece as applicable. The 

Postal Service will supply the provider 

with the necessary detail to justify the 

correction and amount of the postage 

correction to be used in the adjustment 

process. The provider must pay the 

postage adjustment or supply customers 

with visibility into identified postage 

correction, facilitate a payment 

adjustment from the customer in the 

amount equivalent to the identified 

postage discrepancies to the extent 

possible, and enable customers to 

submit electronic disputes of such 

postage discrepancies to the Postal 

Service. Further if the Customer does 

not have funds sufficient to cover the 

amount of the discrepancies or the 

postage discrepancies have not been 

resolved, the provider may be required 

to temporarily suspend or permanently 

shut down the customer’s ability to 

print PC Postage as described in 

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 604.4. 

(3) If the provider incorrectly 

programmed postage rates, delayed 

programming postage rate changes or 

otherwise provided systems or software, 

which caused customers to pay 

incorrect postage amounts, within two 

calendar weeks of the provider being 

made aware of such error, the provider 

shall correct the error and, in the event 

that the amount of collected revenue is 

less than the amount of revenue that 

should have been collected absent the 

error, (i) pay the Postal Service for the 

postage deficiency and (ii) provide the 

Postal Service with a detailed 

breakdown of how the error affected the 

provider’s collection of revenue. 

(4) Except as may otherwise expressly 

be agreed to by contract, the provider is 

responsible for ensuring that: 

(i) All customers pay (and the Postal 

Service receives) the current published 

prices that are available to mailers who 

purchase postage through an approved 

PC Postage provider; and 

(ii) Payments to the Postal Service (or 

the log files necessary for the Postal 

Service to collect payments directly 

from customers) are complete and 

accurate and are initiated or 

transmitted, as applicable, to the Postal 

Service each day. 

(5) Each PC Postage Provider: 

(i) Is responsible for ensuring that 

customers are informed, understand and 

agree that they may be charged for 

deficient payment before they complete 

their initial transactions; 

(ii) Shall comply with applicable laws 

and ensure that its systems, software, 

interfaces, communications and other 

properties that are used to sell or market 

postal products accurately describe such 

products; 

(iii) Shall cover any costs that the 

Postal Service may incur as a result of 

any act or omission of such provider or 

its employees, contractors or 

representatives in connection with its 

role as a PC Postage provider; and 

(iv) In performing its obligations 

hereunder, shall comply with the APV 

SOP and all agreed to interface 

documentation (as updated from time to 

time). 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04237 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2016–0061, FRL–9943–03– 

Region 2] 

Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Puerto Rico; 

Attainment Demonstration for the 

Arecibo Lead Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove a State Implementation Plan, 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico to the EPA on January 30, 

2015, for the purpose of providing for 

attainment of the 2008 Lead National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards in the 

Arecibo 2008 Lead nonattainment area. 

While the SIP includes all of the 

required elements for the Arecibo Area, 

the EPA proposes disapproval because 

the dispersion modeling analysis does 

not demonstrate attainment of the lead 

standard. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02– 

OAR–2016–0061 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The 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. The 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/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mazeeda Khan, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3715, or by 

email at khan.mazeeda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background information for 

this proposal? 

III. What is included in Puerto Rico’s 

proposed SIP submittal? 

IV. What is the EPA’s analysis of Puerto 

Rico’s attainment plan submittal? 

a. Modeling Approach 

b. Modeling Results 

V. What are the consequences of a 

disapproved SIP? 

a. What are the Act’s provisions for 

sanctions? 

b. What federal implementation plan 

provisions apply if a State fails to submit 

an approvable plan? 

c. What are the ramifications regarding 

conformity? 

VI. What are the EPA’s conclusions? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

a. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10160 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W (The EPA’s 

Guideline on Air Quality Models) (November 2005) 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/

guide/appw_05.pdf. 

i. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is proposing to disapprove Puerto 

Rico’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

as submitted through the Puerto Rico 

Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) 

to the EPA on January 30, 2015, for the 

purpose of demonstrating attainment of 

the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the 

Arecibo 2008 Lead nonattainment area 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Arecibo 

Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The Arecibo Area is 

comprised of a portion of Arecibo 

County in Puerto Rico with a 4 

kilometer radius surrounding The 

Battery Recycling Company, Inc. 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘TBRCI’’). 

Puerto Rico’s lead attainment plan for 

the Arecibo Area includes a base year 

emissions inventory, a modeling 

demonstration of lead attainment, an 

analysis of reasonably available control 

measures (RACM)/reasonably available 

control technology (RACT), a reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plan, and 

contingency measures. 

The EPA proposes to determine that 

Puerto Rico’s attainment plan for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS for the Arecibo Area 

does not meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act. The EPA is 

proposing to disapprove Puerto Rico’s 

attainment plan for the Arecibo Area 

because the dispersion modeling 

analysis does not demonstrate 

attainment of the lead standard in all 

areas, as discussed in Section IV of this 

proposed rulemaking. 

II. What is the background information 

for this proposal? 

On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), 

the EPA revised the Lead NAAQS, 

lowering the level from 1.5 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 0.15 mg/m3

calculated over a three-month rolling 

average. The EPA established the 2008 

Lead NAAQS based on significant 

evidence and numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects 

are associated with exposures to lead 

emissions. 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) to designate 

areas throughout the United States as 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; 

this designation process is described in 

section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On 

November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), the 

EPA promulgated initial air quality 

designations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 

which became effective on December 

31, 2010, based on air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 

2007–2009, where there was sufficient 

data to support a nonattainment 

designation. Designations for all 

remaining areas were completed on 

November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72097), 

which became effective on December 

31, 2011, based on air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 

2008–2010. Effective on December 31, 

2011, the Arecibo Area was designated 

as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, based on air quality 

monitoring data from June 2010. This 

designation triggered a requirement for 

Puerto Rico to submit a SIP revision by 

July 1, 2013 with a plan for how the 

Area would attain the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than December 31, 2016. 

III. What is included in Puerto Rico’s 

proposed SIP submittal? 

In accordance with section 172(c) of 

the CAA and 40 CFR 51.117, Puerto 

Rico’s attainment plan for the Arecibo 

Area includes: (1) An emissions 

inventory for the plan’s base year 

(2011); and (2) an attainment 

demonstration. The attainment 

demonstration includes: Technical 

analyses that locate, identify and 

quantify sources of emissions 

contributing to violations of the 2008 

Lead NAAQS; a modeling analysis of an 

emissions control strategy for TBRCI 

facility that does not attain the Lead 

NAAQS by the attainment year (2016); 

and contingency measures required 

under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. 

IV. What is the EPA’s analysis of Puerto 

Rico’s attainment plan submittal? 

The CAA requirements (see, e.g., 

section 172(c)(4)) and the Lead SIP 

regulations found at 40 CFR 51.117) 

require states to employ atmospheric 

dispersion modeling for the 

demonstration of attainment of the Lead 

NAAQS for areas in the vicinity of point 

sources listed in 40 CFR 51.117(a)(1), as 

expeditiously as practicable. Section 

302(d) of the CAA includes the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the 

definition of the term ‘‘State.’’ The 

demonstration must also meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 

CFR part 51, App. W, and include 

inventory data, modeling results, and 

emissions reduction analyses on which 

the Commonwealth has based its 

projected attainment. All these 

requirements comprise the ‘‘attainment 

plan’’ that is required for lead 

nonattainment areas. 

The Puerto Rico modeling analysis 

was prepared using the EPA’s preferred 

dispersion modeling system, the 

American Meteorological Society/

Environmental Protection Agency 

Regulatory Model (AERMOD) consisting 

of the AERMOD model and two data 

input preprocessors AERMET, and 

AERMAP, consistent with the EPA’s 

Modeling Guidance 1 and 40 CFR 

51.117. More detailed information on 

the AERMOD Modeling system and 

other modeling tools and documents 

can be found on the EPA Technology 

Transfer Network Support Center for 

Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling 

(SCRAM) (http://www.the EPA.gov/ttn/

scram/) and in Puerto Rico’s January 30, 

2015 SIP submittal, in the docket for 

this proposed action (EPA–R04–OAR– 

2014–0220) on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. A brief description of the 

modeling used to support the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s 

attainment demonstration is provided 

below. 

a. Modeling Approach 

The following is an overview of the 

air quality modeling approach used in 

Puerto Rico’s SIP submittal on January 

30, 2015. 

AERMOD pre-processors, AERMET 

and AERMAP were used to process one 

year of site-specific meteorological data 

from 1992–1993 collected at the PREPA 

Cambalache station, based on PREQB’s 

land use classifications, in combination 

with meteorological data from the San 

Juan station for substitution of the sitespecific missing data. 

TBRCI emissions points were divided 

into stack, area source and volume 

source fugitive emissions. The volume 

source is the main process building. The 

area source was selected for the 

modeling of the emissions generated 

from the vehicle movement between the 

carbon, scrap and soda ash storage 

areas. 

The EPA LEADPOST processor is 

used for the calculation of the Lead 

rolling 3-month average using the 

monthly modeling results. Lead 

background concentration was omitted 

because the PREQB does not have an 

Arecibo Lead air quality monitor that is 

not affected by the emissions from 

TBRCI facility that would be 

representative of the Arecibo area. The 

PREQB addressed this issue by using a 

multi-source modeling scenario with 

projected or controlled emissions to 

2016 of the facilities in the six 

municipalities (Arecibo, Barceloneta, 

Ciales, Florida Hatillo and Utuado), 

including the Arecibo airport. 

The PREQB developed the 2011 base 

year and the 2016 control strategy 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10161 

2Additional information on the implementation 

of the lapse grace period can be found in the final 

transportation conformity rule published on 

January 24 , 2008. (73 FR 4423–4425). 

emissions inventory for input into the 

air quality model to perform the 

dispersion modeling. The 2016 

emissions inventory was used in the 

multi-source modeling scenario (see 

modeling protocol). 

b. Modeling Results 

The Lead NAAQS compliance results 

of the AERMOD modeling are 

summarized in Table 1 below. As can be 

seen in Table 1, the maximum 3-month 

rolling average predicted impact with 

the meteorological data (2006–2010) is 

more than the 2008 Lead NAAQS of 

0.15 mg/m3 for one set of AERMOD 

modeling runs. Output from the 

LEADPOST processor which details all 

of the concentrations can be found in 

the body of the January 30, 2015 

submittal. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF MODELING RESULTS

Pollutant Avg. time 

Maximum 

monthly 

predicted 

impact 

(μg/m3) 

Background 

conc. 

(μg/m3) 

Maximum 3- 

high avg. 

predicted 

impact 

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

Impact 

greater 

than 

NAAQS 

Pb ............................................ 3-month rolling ........................ 0.34729 0.0 0.3313 0.15 Yes. 

The post-control, which includes the 

RACM and RACT analysis, resulted in 

a predicted impact of 0.33 mg/m3. This 

data indicates the control scenario of 

total full enclosure of TBRCI will not 

result in the emission reductions 

necessary to show attainment. 

The EPA has reviewed the modeling 

that Puerto Rico submitted to support 

the attainment demonstration for the 

Arecibo Area and has determined that 

this modeling is consistent with CAA 

requirements, Appendix W and the EPA 

guidance for lead attainment 

demonstration modeling. However, the 

modeling analysis does not demonstrate 

attainment with the Lead NAAQS. 

Therefore, the EPA proposes to 

disapprove Puerto Rico’s Lead SIP for 

the Arecibo Area. The EPA understands 

that the PREQB is in the process of 

revising the attainment demonstration 

modeling to demonstrate attainment in 

the Arecibo area, and address this 

deficiency. 

V. What are the consequences of a 

disapproved SIP? 

This section explains the 

consequences of a disapproval of a SIP 

under the CAA. The CAA provides for 

the imposition of sanctions and the 

promulgation of a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) if the 

Commonwealth fails to submit a plan 

revision that corrects the deficiencies 

identified by the EPA in its disapproval. 

a. What are the Act’s provisions for 

sanctions? 

If the EPA disapproves a required SIP 

or component of a SIP, such as the 

Attainment Demonstration SIP, CAA 

§ 179(a) provides for the imposition of 

sanctions unless the deficiency is 

corrected within 18 months of the final 

rulemaking of disapproval. The first 

sanction would apply 18 months after 

the EPA disapproves the SIP. Under the 

EPA’s sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 

52.31, the first sanction would be 2:1 

offsets for sources subject to the new 

source review requirements under CAA 

§ 173. If the Commonwealth fails to 

submit a SIP for which the EPA 

proposes full or conditional approval 6 

months after the first sanction is 

imposed, the second sanction will 

apply. The second sanction is a 

limitation on the receipt of Federal 

highway funds in the nonattainment 

area. The EPA also has authority under 

CAA § 110(m) to sanction a broader 

area, but is not proposing to take such 

action in today’s rulemaking. 

b. What federal implementation plan 

provisions apply if a State fails to 

submit an approvable plan? 

In addition to sanctions, if the EPA 

finds that a State/Commonwealth failed 

to submit the required SIP revision or 

disapproves the required SIP revision, 

or a portion thereof, the EPA must 

promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years 

from the date of the finding if the 

deficiency has not been corrected 

within that time period. 

c. What are the ramifications regarding 

conformity? 

One consequence of the EPA’s 

disapproval of a control strategy SIP is 

a conformity freeze whereby affected 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) cannot make new conformity 

determinations on long range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs). If we 

finalize the disapproval of the 

attainment demonstration SIP, a 

conformity freeze will be in place as of 

the effective date of the disapproval. (40 

CFR 93.120(a)(2)) This means that no 

transportation plan, TIP, or project not 

in the first four years of the currently 

conforming transportation plan and TIP 

or that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

93.104(f) during a 12-month lapse grace 

period 2 may be found to conform until 

another attainment demonstration SIP is 

submitted and the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets are found adequate or 

the attainment demonstration is 

approved. In addition, if the highway 

funding sanction is implemented, the 

conformity status of the transportation 

plan and TIP will lapse on the date of 

implementation of the highway 

sanctions. During a conformity lapse, 

only projects that are exempt from 

transportation conformity (e.g., road 

resurfacing, safety projects, 

reconstruction of bridges without 

adding travel lanes, bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities), transportation 

control measures that are in the 

approved SIP and project phases that 

were approved prior to the start of the 

lapse can proceed during the lapse. No 

new project-level approvals or 

conformity determinations can be made 

and no new transportation plan or TIP 

may be found to conform until another 

attainment demonstration SIP is 

submitted and the motor vehicle 

emissions budget is found adequate. 

VI. What are the EPA’s conclusions? 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

Puerto Rico’s Lead attainment plan for 

the Arecibo Area. The EPA has 

determined that the SIP does not meet 

the applicable requirements of the CAA. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

disapprove Puerto Rico’s January 30, 

2015 SIP submittal since the modelling 

analysis does not demonstrate 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

Since the time that Puerto Rico 

submitted the SIP to the EPA, the 

PREQB formally revoked TBRCI’s 

operating and construction permits on 

August 19, 2015. The EPA understands 

that Puerto Rico is in the process of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10162 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

revising the attainment demonstration 

modeling to address this change in 

TBRCI’s operating status. Therefore, 

while we are proposing disapproval, the 

EPA fully expects Puerto Rico to submit 

a new Attainment Demonstration SIP to 

reflect this change in TBRCI’s operating 

status in the Arecibo Area. If the 

Attainment Demonstration SIP is 

submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision, 

the EPA will review it and, if it is 

approvable, will withdraw the proposed 

disapproval. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

a. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

b. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

c. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). This action will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. This 

action merely disapproves Puerto Rico’s 

Lead SIP as not meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the plan. 

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not impose any 

additional enforceable duty beyond that 

which is required by Puerto Rico law 

because this rule disapproves a SIP 

revision and it 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); 

e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

Commonwealth, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the Commonwealth, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

disapproves the Puerto Rico Lead SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

f. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000); 

g. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it disapproves 

the Puerto Rico Lead SIP. 

h. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

i. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state or 

commonwealth choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 

context, in the absence of a prior 

existing requirement for the 

Commonwealth to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS), the EPA has 

no authority to disapprove a 

commonwealth submission for failure to 

use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent 

with applicable law for the EPA, when 

it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS 

in place of a SIP submission that 

otherwise satisfies the provisions of the 

CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 40 Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Reporting and Recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: February 22, 2016. 

Judith Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04438 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0708; FRL–9942–78– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Kansas; 2015 Kansas State 

Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to grant full 

approval of Kansas’s attainment 

demonstration State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

nonattainment area of Salina, Saline 

County, Kansas, received by EPA on 

February 25, 2015. The applicable 

standard addressed in this action is the 

lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 

2008. EPA believes that the SIP 

submitted by the state satisfies the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act identified in EPA’s Final Rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 15, 2008, and will bring the 

designated portions of Salina, Kansas, 

into attainment of the 0.15 microgram 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) lead NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0708, to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The 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. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS