[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17168-17176]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06418]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0582; FRL-9792-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, and in the alternative,
conditionally approve in part, the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision, submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Department
of Environment and Conservation, demonstrating that the State meets the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act) for the 2008 Lead 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. Tennessee certified that the Tennessee SIP
contains provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented,
enforced, and maintained in Tennessee (hereafter referred to as an
``infrastructure submission''). EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
110(a)(2)(J) related to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
requirements, and a portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Tennessee's
October 19, 2009, infrastructure submission. The current Tennessee SIP
does not include provisions to comply with these requirements; however,
Tennessee has committed to submit SIP revisions to address these
deficiencies. EPA is also proposing, in the alternative, to approve the
entire Tennessee SIP, including the sections described above, as
meeting the applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS. Should Tennessee submit, and EPA approve, the necessary
provisions to correct the identified infrastructure SIP deficiencies
prior to EPA taking final action on the October 19, 2009,
infrastructure submission, EPA anticipates finalizing full approval of
the infrastructure SIP. If EPA does not approve these necessary
provisions prior to taking final action on the October 19, 2009,
infrastructure submission, EPA anticipates finalizing conditional
approvals for those elements for which the Tennessee infrastructure SIP
remains deficient.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0582, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0582,'' 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: 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-
2012-0582. 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 www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, 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. The telephone number is (404)
562-9152. Mr. Farngalo can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed the elements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 5, 1978, EPA promulgated primary and secondary NAAQS for
Lead under section 109 of the Act. See 43 FR 46246. Both primary and
secondary standards were set at a level of 1.5 micrograms per cubic
meter ([micro]g/m\3\), measured as Lead in total suspended particulate
matter (Pb-TSP), not to be exceeded by the maximum arithmetic mean
concentration averaged over a calendar quarter. This standard was based
on the ``1977 Air Quality Criteria for Lead'' guidance document (USEPA,
August 7, 1977). On November 12, 2008 (75 FR 81126), EPA issued a final
rule to revise the primary and secondary Lead NAAQS. The revised
primary and secondary Lead NAAQS were revised to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. By
statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of
a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to
address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs to EPA no later than
October 15, 2011, for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Tennessee submitted its
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS on October 19, 2009.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 27, 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity and
the Center for Environmental Health sued EPA for allegedly failing
to take certain mandatory actions related to the ``infrastructure''
requirements associated with the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Included with this
complaint was EPA's alleged failure to take action on Tennessee's
2008 Lead infrastructure SIP within the applicable statutory
timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's action is proposing to approve Tennessee's infrastructure
submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. In addition, EPA is also proposing,
in the alternative, to conditionally approve a subset of the sections
required as part of the State's 2008 Lead infrastructure SIP.
Specifically, EPA is also proposing, in the alternative, to
conditionally approve, Tennessee's infrastructure submission for
portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
110(a)(2)(J) as they relate to a 2010 PSD rulemaking for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5).\2\ In addition,
EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve, in the alternative, the
portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining to CAA section 128(a)(1)
significant portion of income requirements. Today's action is not
proposing approval of any specific rule; but rather, proposing that
Tennessee's already approved SIP meets--or in the case of the elements
proposed for conditional approval, will meet, with changes--certain CAA
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the final rulemaking entitled ``Final Rule Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact
Levels (SILs) and Significant monitoring Concentration (SMC): Final
Rule'' (75 FR 64864).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, states typically have met
the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through
earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1978 Lead NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must
meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements
include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and
emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this
proposed rulemaking are listed below \3\

and in EPA's October 14, 2011, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to
section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement, PSD and new source
review (NSR).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and international transport
provisions.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, funding, and authority.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    This rulemaking will not cover four substantive issues that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources (SSM), that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(director's discretion); (iii) existing provisions for minor source NSR
programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (minor source NSR);
and, (iv) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent
with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67
FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007)
(NSR Reform).
    Instead, EPA has indicated that it has other authority to address
any such existing SIP defects in other rulemakings, as appropriate. A
detailed rationale for why these four substantive issues are not part
of the scope of infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be found in EPA's
June 11, 2012, proposed rule entitled, ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Tennessee 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' in the section entitled, ``Scope of
Infrastructure SIPs'' (See 77 FR 34306). It can also be found in EPA's
August 22, 2012, proposed rule entitled, ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Tennessee 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards'' in the section entitled, ``Scope of Infrastructure
SIPs.'' See 77 FR 50651.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed the elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' provisions?

    The Tennessee infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures:
Several regulations within Tennessee's SIP provide Tennessee Air
Pollution Control Regulations relevant to air quality control
regulations. The regulations described below have been federally
approved in the Tennessee SIP and include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures. Chapters 1200-3-1, General
Provisions; 1200-3-3, Air Quality Standards; 1200-3-22, Lead Emission
Standards; and 1200-3-8, Fugitive Dust Control Regulations of the
Tennessee SIP establish emission limits for lead and address the
required control measures, means, and techniques for compliance with
the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
the provisions contained in these chapters and Tennessee's practices
are adequate to protect the 2008 Lead NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the
Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to
take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system:
Tennessee's Air Pollution Control Requirements, Chapter 1200-3-12,
Procedures for Ambient Sampling and Analysis, of the Tennessee SIP,
along with the Tennessee Network Description and Ambient Air Monitoring
Network Plan, provide for an ambient air quality monitoring system in
the State. Annually, EPA approves the ambient air monitoring network
plan for the state agencies. On July 9, 2012, Tennessee submitted its
plan to EPA. On September 21, 2012, EPA approved Tennessee's monitoring
network plan. Tennessee's approved monitoring network plan can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-
0582. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP
and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and
data system related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve, and in the alternative, conditionally approve in
part, Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS with
respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a
program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of
any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are
achieved. Chapter 1200-3-9, Construction and Operating Permits, of
Tennessee's SIP pertains to the construction of any new major
stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source
in an area designated as nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable.
Chapter 1200-3-22, Lead Emission Standards, of Tennessee's SIP,
published on August 12, 1985, specifies requirements for

Reasonably Available Control Technology for significant existing
sources of Lead (October 29, 2001, 66 FR 44632).
    In addition to these requirements, there are four other revisions
to the Tennessee SIP that that are necessary to meet the requirements
of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). These four revisions are
related to 1) the Ozone Implementation NSR Update (November 29, 2005,
70 FR 71612); 2) the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 31514); 3)
the NSR PM2.5 Rule (May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28321); \5\ and 4)
the final rulemaking entitled ``Final Rule Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant monitoring Concentration (SMC): Final Rule'' hereafter
referred to as ``PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule'' (75 FR
64864).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1250, 2013 WL 45653 (D.C.
Cir., filed July 15, 2008) (consolidated with 09-1102, 11-1430),
issued a judgment that remanded EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered EPA
to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with
this opinion.'' Id. at * 8. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of the CAA
establishes additional provisions for particulate matter
nonattainment areas.
    The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision,
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' 73 FR 28321
(May 16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of
PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and
attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of
Subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider
the portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements for
PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected
by the court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need
to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 rule in order
to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's approval in
part and conditional approval in part of Tennessee's infrastructure
SIP as to elements (C), (D)(i)(II), or (J) with respect to the PSD
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule does not
conflict with the court's opinion.
    The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also does
not affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA
interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due 3 years after adoption or
revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred
to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be
due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5
under part D, extending as far as 10 years following designations
for some elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first necessary revision to the Tennessee SIP (Ozone
Implementation NSR Update revision) was submitted by TDEC on May 28,
2009. This revision modified provisions of the State's implementation
plan at Chapter 1200-3-9, Construction and Operating Permits, in order
to meet the applicable requirements of the Ozone Implementation NSR
Update. EPA approved this revision on February 7, 2012. See 77 FR 6016.
    The second necessary revision pertains to changes in the PSD
program that were promulgated in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring
Rule. TDEC submitted a revision to EPA on January 11, 2012, to address
these changes. The revision establishes appropriate emission thresholds
for determining which new stationary sources and modification projects
become subject to Tennessee's PSD permitting requirements for their GHG
emissions, and thereby addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting
applicability in Tennessee. EPA approved this revision on February 28,
2012. See 77 FR 11744.
    The third necessary revision pertains to the adoption of PSD and
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) requirements related to the
implementation of the NSR PM2.5 Rule. On July 29, 2011, TDEC
submitted revisions to its PSD/NSR regulations for EPA approval to
revise the Tennessee SIP in Chapter 1200-03-09-.01, Construction
Permits. This revision addresses the required federal PSD and NNSR
permitting provisions governing the implementation of the NSR program
for PM2.5 as promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule.
See 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008). EPA finalized approval of Tennessee's
July 29, 2011, submittal on July 30, 2012. See 77 FR 44481.
    The fourth necessary revision pertains to the increments portion of
the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. This rule requires
states to regulate the construction and modification of any major
stationary source locating in an attainment or unclassifiable area,
where the source's emissions may cause or contribute to a violation of
the NAAQS. Currently, Tennessee's SIP does not contain provisions to
address this requirement. On October 4, 2012, Tennessee submitted a
letter to EPA with a schedule and commitment to approve the necessary
specific enforceable SIP revision to address its SIP deficiencies
related to the October 20, 2010, PSD PM2.5 Increments, SILs
and SMC Rule increments requirements. The Tennessee letter, which
commits the State to submitting this revision to EPA within one year,
can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0582. Based on Tennessee's commitment, EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) related to
the increments requirements of the PM2.5 Increments, SILs
and SMC Rule consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the Act. Failure by
Tennessee to provide this revision by March 6, 2014 would automatically
result in the conditional approval converting to a disapproval. Should
that occur, EPA would provide the public with notice of such a
disapproval in the Federal Register.
    As described above, EPA is also proposing, in the alternative, to
approve section 110(a)(2)(C) related to the increments requirements of
the PM2.5 Increments, SILs and SMC Rule. In this action, EPA
is proposing to approve in part, and in the alternative conditionally
approve in part, Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS
with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to
include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and
construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the
NAAQS are achieved. Minor sources are subject to the statutory
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA which requires `` * * *
regulations of the modification and construction of any stationary
source * * * as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved.''
These programs should be established in each state within 3 years of
the promulgation of a new revised NAAQS, and may be particularly
important because virtually all sources of lead are minor sources. EPA
has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP (with the
exception of the requirements related to PM2.5 increments)
and practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources related to the 2008 lead
NAAQS.
    Should Tennessee submit its revision to address the applicable
portions of this Rule before EPA finalizes a conditional approval this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA intends finalize full approval for
this section.\6\ In the event, EPA does not approve the increments
portion of Tennessee PSD PM2.5 Increments, SILs and SMC Rule
revision into the SIP prior to final action on the State's
infrastructure SIP, EPA intends to finalize a conditional approve of
this section 110(a)(2)(C) requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Full approval of this section would require EPA to take
final action approving the increment portions of Tennessee's PSD
PM2.5 Increments, SILs and SMC Rule revision prior to, or
concurrently with, final action to approve section 110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Collectively, the above-described SIP revisions address requisite
requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C)

and are necessary for today's rulemaking to propose approval of
infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(C). EPA also notes that today's
action is not proposing to approve or disapprove the State's existing
minor NSR program itself to the extent that it is inconsistent with
EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA believes that a number of
states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the existing
EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with states to
reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory provisions for
the program. The statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide
for considerable flexibility in designing minor NSR programs, and EPA
believes it may be time to revisit the regulatory requirements for this
program to give the states an appropriate level of flexibility to
design a program that meets their particular air quality concerns,
while assuring reasonable consistency across the country in protecting
the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor sources.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and (ii) Interstate and International transport
provisions: EPA is proposing to approve, and in the alternative
conditionally approve in part, Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the
2008 lead NAAQS with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to include a
program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of
any stationary source subject to PSD as necessary to assure that the
NAAQS are achieved. Specifically, as mentioned above, in this action,
EPA is proposing to approve in part and in the alternative,
conditionally approve in part Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the
2008 Lead NAAQS related to the PM2.5 PSD increments and with
respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to
include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and
construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the
NAAQS are achieved. Minor sources are subject to the statutory
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA which requires ``* * *
regulations of the modification and construction of any stationary
source * * * as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved.''
These programs should be established in each state within 3 years of
the promulgation of a new revised NAAQS, and may be particularly
important because virtually all sources of lead are minor sources.
    Chapter 1200-9-.01(5) Growth Policy; 1200-3-9-.01(4) Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality; and Chapter 1200-3-22 Lead
Emission of the Tennessee SIP outline how the State will notify
neighboring states of potential impacts from new or modified sources.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provides for infrastructure SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or
interfering with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The
preceding requirements, from subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
respectively refer to what may be called prongs 1 and 2. The physical
properties of lead prevent lead emission from experiencing that same
travel or formation phenomena as PM2.5 and ozone for
interstate transport as outlined in prongs 1 and 2. More specifically,
there is a sharp decrease in the lead concentrations, at least in the
coarse fraction, as the distance from a lead source increases. EPA
believes that the requirements of prongs 1 and 2 can be satisfied
through a state's assessment as to whether a lead source located within
its State in close proximity to a state border has emissions that
contribute significantly to the nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in the neighboring state.\7\ Tennessee has two
lead sources that have emissions of lead over 0.5 tons per year (tpy).
Both sources are located well beyond 2 miles from the State border.\8\
Therefore, EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's
SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example EPA's experience with the initial lead
designations suggest that sources that emit less than 0.5 tpy or
that are located more than two miles from the state border generally
appear unlikely to contribute significantly to the nonattainment in
another state.
    \8\ The first facility, Exide Technologies, is located at 364
Exide Drive in Bristol Tennessee, which is approximately 5 miles
from the nearest border. The second facility is Gerdau Ameristeel,
located at 4615 Coster Road NE in Knoxville, Tennessee, which is
approximately 100 miles from the nearest border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), as it relates to PSD requirements,
(referred to as prong 3) may be met by the State's confirmation in an
infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major
modifications in the state are subject to PSD and (if the state
contains a nonattainment area for the relevant pollutant) NNSR programs
that implement the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    As discussed above in the discussion for the PSD requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C), Tennessee's SIP currently contains three of the
four necessary provisions for the State's PSD program.\9\ On October 4,
2012, Tennessee submitted a letter to EPA with a schedule and
commitment to provide the necessary SIP revision to address its SIP
deficiencies related to the October 20, 2010, PSD PM2.5
Increments, SILs, and SMC Rule requirements. Based on Tennessee's
commitment, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the portion
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), related to the increments requirements of
the PM2.5 Increments, SILs and SMC Rule consistent with
section 110(k)(4) of the Act. EPA's proposed conditional of prong 3, if
finalized, would obligate Tennessee to provide the SIP revision to
address the increment portion of the PSD PM2.5 Increments,
SILs and SMC Rule by March 6, 2014. Failure by Tennessee to provide
this revision by that date would automatically result in such a
conditional approval converting to a disapproval. Should that occur,
EPA would provide the public with notice of such a disapproval in the
Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ (1) EPA's approval of Tennessee's PSD/NSR regulations which
address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements, (2) EPA's
approval of Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions which
addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in
Tennessee, and (3) EPA's approval of Tennessee's NSR
PM2.5 Rule, which adopts required federal PSD and NNSR
permitting provisions governing the implementation of the NSR
program for PM2.5 as promulgated in the NSR
PM2.5 Rule.
    For additional detailed information on these requirements, see
section 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also today proposing full approval of prong 3. In the event
that Tennessee submits a revision to address increments portion of the
PSD PM2.5 Increments, SILs and SMC Rule, and EPA approves
that submission prior to finalizing this infrastructure SIP action, EPA
believes Tennessee's 2008 Lead infrastructure SIP for prong 3 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will then be fully approvable.
    With regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the visibility sub-
element, referred to as prong 4, significant impacts from lead
emissions from stationary sources are expected to be limited to short
distances from the source. Lead stationary sources in Tennessee are
located at distances from Class I areas such that visibility impacts
are negligible. Where a state's regional haze SIP has been approved as
meeting all current obligations, EPA has determined that such an
approved plan demonstrates compliance with the prong 4 requirements.
EPA completed a limited approval and limited disapproval of Tennessee's
regional haze SIP,\10\ with the exception of the

best available retrofit technology (BART) for the Eastman Chemical
Company portion, on April, 24, 2012. See 77 FR 24392. On November 27,
2012, EPA approved the Eastman Chemical Company BART portion of
Tennessee's regional haze submittal. See 77 FR 70689.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Refer to EPA's proposed rulemaking entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Region 4 States;
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and
2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' for more detailed information in support of EPA's
proposed approval of Tennessee's 2008 lead infrastructure submission
as it relates to visibility. See 78 FR 11805 (February 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii),
Tennessee does not have any pending obligation under sections 115 and
126 of the CAA. With the exception of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
related to PSD, EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Tennessee's SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with
the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international
pollution abatement for the 2008 lead NAAQS. For the reasons described
above, EPA is proposing full approval of section 110(a)(2)(D), and in
the alternative, conditional approval of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong
3 related to the increment requirements of the PSD PM2.5
Increments, SILs and SMC Rule.
    5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires
that each implementation plan provide (i) necessary assurances that the
State will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state
law to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) that the State comply
with the requirements respecting State Boards pursuant to section 128
of the Act, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the State has
relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality
for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan
provisions. EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's SIP as meeting the
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). With respect to
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (regarding state boards), EPA is proposing to
approve, and in the alternative conditionally approve in part, this
sub-element. EPA's rationale for today's proposals respecting each
section of 110(a)(2)(E) is described in turn below.
    With respect to sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), TDEC, through
the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board, is responsible for
promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards
general policies, a system of permits, fee schedules for the review of
plans, and other planning needs. As evidence of the adequacy of TDEC's
resources regarding sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), EPA submitted a
letter to Tennessee on April 24, 2012, outlining 105 grant commitments
and current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2011. The
letter EPA submitted to Tennessee can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0582.
Annually, states update these grant commitments based on current SIP
requirements, air quality planning, and applicable requirements related
to the NAAQS. There were no outstanding issues in relation to the SIP
for fiscal year 2011, therefore, Tennessee's grants were finalized and
closed out. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee
has adequate resources for implementation of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to
approve, and in the alternative, to conditionally approve in part
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP as to this requirement. Section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provides that infrastructure SIPs must require
compliance with section 128 of CAA requirements respecting State
boards. Section 128, in turn, provides at subsection (a)(1) that each
SIP shall require that any board or body which approves permits or
enforcement orders shall be subject to the described public interest
and income restrictions therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) requires that any
board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to
approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be
subject to conflict of interest disclosure requirements.
    EPA believes the Tennessee SIP currently meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to section 128(a)(2) obligations,
but does not meet the section 128(a)(1) obligations. To address section
128(a)(2) requirements, the provisions of Tennessee Rule Chapter 1200-
3-17 have been incorporated into the Tennessee SIP. See 67 FR 55322.
Regarding section 128(a)(1) requirements, Tennessee previously
committed to adopt specific enforceable measures into its SIP within
one year to address the applicable portions of section 128(a)(1) for
the infrastructure SIP of another NAAQS. Tennessee's section 128(a)(1)
commitment letter to EPA, dated March 28, 2012, can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353. Based
upon that commitment, on July 23, 2012, EPA took final action to
conditionally approve infrastructure sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
regarding section 128(a)(1) requirements for purposes of the 1997 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 42997. EPA is today proposing to
conditionally approve Tennessee's 2008 Lead infrastructure SIP for
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) related to the section 128(a)(1) requirements
based upon the State's earlier commitment to adopt the specific
enforceable measures by July 23, 2013.\11\ Failure by the State to
adopt these provisions and submit them to EPA for incorporation into
the SIP by July 23, 2013, would result in today's conditional approval
being treated as a disapproval. Should that occur, EPA would provide
the public with notice of such a disapproval in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ July 23, 2012, is one year from the approval date of EPA's
final rulemaking to conditionally approve sub-section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding section 128(a)(1) for purposes of the
1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the conditional approvals proposed in this action, EPA is
also proposing, in the alternative, to fully approve infrastructure
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding section 128(a)(1) requirements. In
the event that Tennessee submits a revision to address the section
128(a)(1) requirements, and EPA approves that submission prior to
finalizing this infrastructure SIP action, EPA believes Tennessee's
2008 Lead infrastructure SIP for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) will then be
fully approvable. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Tennessee, once the above described changes have been incorporated into
the SIP, will have adequate resources for implementation of 2008 Lead
NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system: Tennessee's
infrastructure submission describes how the State has established
requirements for compliance testing by emissions sampling and analysis,
and for emissions and operation monitoring to ensure the quality of
data in the State. TDEC uses these data to track progress towards
maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies,
identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance
with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. These
requirements are provided in Chapter 1200-3-10, Required Sampling,
Recording and Reporting, of the Tennessee SIP.
    Additionally, Tennessee is required to submit emissions data to EPA
for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The

AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to
12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data.
All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory
every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources
annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report
emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated
precursors--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon
monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many
states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
Tennessee made its latest update to the NEI on September 11, 2012. EPA
compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and
releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices are adequate for the
stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: Chapter 1200-3-15, Emergency
Episode Requirements, of the Tennessee SIP identifies air pollution
emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies. These criteria
have previously been approved by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices are adequate for
emergency powers related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: As previously discussed, TDEC
is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as
needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS. Tennessee has the ability and
authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a
number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS.
    Tennessee has one area, Bristol, TN, that is designated as
nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. On August 29, 2012, EPA
finalized a clean data determination for Bristol, TN. See 77 FR 52232.
This determination of attaining data is based upon complete, quality-
assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2009-2011
period showing that the Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 Lead
NAAQS. Additionally, as a result of this determination, the
requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration,
together with reasonably available control measures, a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for failure to
meet RFP and attainment deadlines are suspended for so long as the Area
continues to attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate
a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 2008 Lead
NAAQS when necessary.
    9. 110(a)(2)(J). EPA is proposing to approve in part, and
conditionally approve in part to approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP
for the 2008 lead NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that provides for
meeting the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the
public notification requirements of section 127; and the PSD and
visibility protection requirements of part C of the Act.
    110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government
officials: Chapter 1200-3-9 Construction and Operating Permits, as well
as the Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation
between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control
agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), provide
for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be
affected by SIP development activities. Tennessee adopted state-wide
consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation
conformity. These consultation procedures include considerations
associated with the development of mobile inventories for SIPs.
Implementation of transportation conformity as outlined in the
consultation procedures requires TDEC to consult with federal, state
and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the
development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA approved
Tennessee's consultation procedures on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26492).
While transportation conformity requirements do not apply for lead
because of the nature of the standard, the consultation procedures that
TDEC has in place to implement transportation conformity requirements
provides evidence of the State's ability to consult with other
governmental agencies on air quality issues. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate consultation with government officials related to the 2008
Lead NAAQS when necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: Chapter
1200-3-15, Emergency Episode Requirements, requires that TDEC notify
the public of any air pollution episode or NAAQS violation. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide public
notification related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (Part C) PSD and visibility protection: In this
action, EPA is proposing to approve in part, and conditionally approve
in part Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS with
respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a
program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of
any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are
achieved. Chapter 1200-3-9, Construction and Operating Permits, of
Tennessee's SIP pertains to the construction of any new major
stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source
in an area designated as nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable.
Chapter 1200-3-22, Lead Emission Standards, of Tennessee's SIP,
published on August 12, 1985, specifies requirements for Reasonably
Available Control Technology for significant existing sources of lead
(October 29, 2001, 66 FR 44632). There are four other revisions to the
Tennessee SIP that are necessary to meet the requirements of
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). These four revisions are related
to the Ozone Implementation NSR Update (November 29, 2005, 70 FR
71612), the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 31514), the NSR
PM2.5 Rule (May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28321), and PM2.5
PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864).
    Tennessee's SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD program for
three of the four program requirements.\12\ On October 4, 2012,
Tennessee submitted a letter to EPA with a schedule and commitment to
provide the necessary SIP revision to address its SIP deficiencies
related to the October 20, 2010, final rulemaking related to PSD
PM2.5 Increments, SILs, and SMC Rule requirements. Based on
Tennessee's commitment, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve
section

110(a)(2)(J), related to PSD consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ (1) EPA's approval of Tennessee's PSD/NSR regulations which
address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements, (2) EPA's
approval of Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions which
addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in
Tennessee, and (3) EPA's approval of Tennessee's NSR
PM2.5 Rule, which adopts required federal PSD and NNSR
permitting provisions governing the implementation of the NSR
program for PM2.5 as promulgated in the NSR
PM2.5 Rule.
    For additional detailed information on these requirements, see
section 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These SIP revisions \13\ address requisite requirements of
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J) and are necessary for today's
rulemaking to propose to approve, in part, and conditionally approve,
in part, infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(J). EPA also notes that
today's action is not proposing to approve or disapprove the State's
existing minor NSR program itself to the extent that it is inconsistent
with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA believes that a
number of states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the
existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with
states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory
provisions for the program. The statutory requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J) provide for considerable flexibility in designing minor
NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be time to revisit the regulatory
requirements for this program to give the states an appropriate level
of flexibility to design a program that meets their particular air
quality concerns, while assuring reasonable consistency across the
country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ (1) EPA's approval of Tennessee's PSD/NSR regulations which
address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements, (2) EPA's
approval of Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions which
addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in
Tennessee, (3) EPA's approval of Tennessee's NSR PM2.5
Rule, which adopts required federal PSD and NNSR permitting
provisions governing the implementation of the NSR program for
PM2.5 as promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule,
and (4) EPA's proposed conditional approval of Tennessee's PSD
PM2.5 Increments, SILs, and SMC rulemaking which
addresses rules that regulate the construction and modification of
any major stationary source locating in an attainment or
unclassifiable area, where the source's emissions may cause or
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to
the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in
the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any
stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved.
Minor sources are subject to the statutory requirements in section
110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA which requires ``* * * regulations of the
modification and construction of any stationary source * * * as
necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved.'' These programs
should be established in each state within 3 years of the promulgation
of a new revised NAAQS, and may be particularly important because
virtually all sources of lead are minor sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and
practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources related to the 2008 lead
NAAQS.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of
a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds that there is
no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J)
when a new NAAQS becomes effective. This would be the case even in the
event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established,
because this NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part
C. Tennessee has submitted SIP revisions for approval to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA Section 169A and 169B, and the regional haze
and best available retrofit technology rules contained in 40 CFR
51.308. On April 24, 2012, EPA published a final rulemaking regarding
Tennessee's regional haze program. See 77 FR 24392. On November 27,
2012, EPA approved the Eastman Chemical Company BART portion of
Tennessee's regional haze submittal. See 77 FR 70689. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate the State's ability to implement PSD programs and to
provide for visibility protection related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when
necessary.
    10. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: Chapter 1200-3-
9-.01(4)(k), Air Quality Models, of the Tennessee SIP specify that
required air modeling be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality Models,'' as incorporated into
the Tennessee SIP. These standards demonstrate that Tennessee has the
authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the
effect on ambient air quality of the Lead NAAQS. Additionally,
Tennessee supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of
emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS,
including the Lead NAAQS, for the southeastern states. Taken as a
whole, Tennessee's air quality regulations and practices demonstrate
that TDEC has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of
predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the Lead NAAQS. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality
and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to
the 2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary.
    11. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: As discussed above, Tennessee's
SIP provides for the review of construction permits. Permitting fees in
Tennessee are collected through the State's federally-approved title V
fees program and consistent with Chapter 1200-03-26-.02, Permit-Related
Fees, of the Tennessee Code. EPA has made the preliminary determination
that Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting
fees related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary.
    12. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: Chapter 1200-3-9-.01(4)(k), Public Participation, of the
Tennessee SIP requires that TDEC notify the public of an application,
preliminary determination, the activity or activities involved in the
permit action, any emissions change associated with any permit
modification, and the opportunity for comment prior to making a final
permitting decision. By way of example, TDEC has recently worked
closely with local political subdivisions during the development of its
Transportation Conformity SIP, Regional Haze Implementation Plan, and
Early Action Compacts. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with
affected local entities related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing alternative actions to (1) approve in full and (2)
approve in part and conditionally approve in part. With the exception
of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to PSD,
110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J) related to PSD, EPA is proposing to
determine that Tennessee's infrastructure submission, provided to EPA
on October 19, 2009, addressed the required infrastructure elements for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve in part and
conditionally approve in part, Tennessee's SIP submission consistent
with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA.
    As described above, with the exception of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to PSD,

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (as it relates to section 128(a)(1), and 110(a)(2)(J)
related to PSD TDEC has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and
(2) SIP requirements pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that
the 2008 lead NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in
Tennessee. With respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
related to PSD, and 110(a)(2)(J) related to PSD, EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP based on an
October 4, 2012, commitment that TDEC will provide the necessary SIP
revision to address its SIP deficiencies related to the October 20,
2010, final rulemaking related to PSD PM2.5 Increments,
SILs, and SMC Rule requirements. With respect to section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (referencing section 128 of the CAA), EPA is proposing
to conditionally approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP based on a
March 28, 2012, commitment that TDEC will adopt specific enforceable
measures into its SIP and submit these revisions to EPA July 23, 2013,
to address the applicable portions of section 128. EPA intends to move
forward with finalizing the conditional approval for these elements
consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the Act. EPA is also proposing to
approve Tennessee's infrastructure submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS,
with the exception of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), because its October 19,
2009, submission is consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 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
proposed 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'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, and Recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: March 11, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-06418 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39065-39067]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16402]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62408; File No. SR-CHX-2010-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the List of
Securities Subject to an Individual Circuit Breaker

June 30, 2010.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on June 30, 2010, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CHX. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    CHX proposes to amend Article 20, Rule 2 to amend its rules
regarding circuit breakers for the trading of individual securities.
The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at (http://www.chx.com) and in the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The CHX is proposing to amend Article 20, Rule 2 to add securities
included in the Russell 1000[reg] Index (``Russell 1000'') and
specified Exchange Traded Products (``ETP'') to the pilot rule. For
purposes of this filing, ETPs include Exchange Traded Funds (``ETF''),
Exchange Traded Vehicles (``ETV''), and Exchange Traded Notes
(``ETN'').
    Amendments to Article 20, Rule 2 to create circuit breakers in
individual securities were approved by the Commission on June 10, 2010
on a pilot basis to end on December 10, 2010. As the Exchange noted in
its filing to adopt these amendments, during the pilot period, the
Exchange would continue to assess whether additional securities need to
be added and whether the parameters of the rule would need to be
modified to accommodate trading characteristics of different
securities.
    Currently, the pilot list of securities is all securities included
in the S&P 500[reg] Index (``S&P 500''). As noted in comment letters to
the original filing to adopt circuit breakers for individual
securities, concerns were raised that including only securities in the
S&P 500 in the pilot rule was too narrow. In particular, commenters
noted that securities that experienced volatility on May 6, 2010,
including ETFs, should be included in the pilot. The Exchange agrees
with the commenters that the pilot list of securities should be
expanded.
    In consultation with other markets, the Exchange proposes to add
the securities included in the Russell 1000 and specified ETPs to the
pilot beginning in July 2010, subject to Commission approval. The
Exchange believes that adding these securities would begin to address
concerns that the scope of the pilot may be too narrow, while at the
same time recognizing that during the pilot period, the markets will
continue to review whether and when to add additional securities to the
pilot and whether the parameters of the rule should be adjusted for
different securities.
    In particular, the Exchange proposes to add securities included in
the Russell 1000 because the Exchange believes that the securities
included in that index have similar trading characteristics to
securities included in the S&P 500 (many of which are the same
securities) and therefore the existing 10% price movement applicable
before invoking a trading pause would be appropriate for the Russell
1000 securities. Because the Exchange does not propose to modify the
10% price movement at this time, the Exchange believes that expanding
to the Russell 1000 is an appropriate next step. Based on our analysis,
the number of times that the Trading Pause would be triggered for
Russell 1000 securities would be similar to the instances for the S&P
500 securities.

    In addition, the Exchange, in consultation with other markets,
proposes to add to the pilot a selected list of ETPs. The pilot list
was developed first by identifying all ETPs across multiple asset
classes and issuers, including domestic equity, international equity,
fixed income, currency, and commodities and futures. Next, the
leveraged ETPs were excluded and the list was sorted by notional
consolidated average daily volume (``CADV'') using year-to-date CADV
ending May 5, 2010, multiplied by the closing price on May 5, 2010.
Those symbols, including inverse ETPs, that trade over $2,000,000 CADV
year to date through May 5, 2010, were selected. To ensure that ETPs
that track similar benchmarks but that do not meet this volume
criterion do not become subject to pricing volatility when a component
security is the subject of a trading pause, the Exchange proposes to
include certain non-leveraged ETPs that have traded below this volume
criterion, but that track the same benchmark as an ETP that does meet
the volume criterion.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed list of ETPs is appropriate
because it identifies those ETPs that have component securities that
largely track the securities included in the S&P 500 and Russell 1000.
Accordingly, if an S&P 500 or Russell 1000 security experiences a
trading pause, any resulting price volatility in a related ETP,
regardless of the CADV of the ETP, would also be subject to a trading
pause trigger. As with the proposal to add the Russell 1000 securities,
the Exchange selected the proposed ETPs because it believes that the
existing 10% price movement would be an appropriate price movement
before invoking a trading pause for ETPs with these characteristics.
The Exchange does not believe that the 10% price movement is an
appropriate threshold for leveraged ETPs because by definition,
leveraged ETPs are based on multiples of price movements in the
underlying index. Accordingly, a 10% percent price movement in a
leveraged ETP may not signify extraordinary volatility. Because the
Exchange is not proposing to adopt revised price movement thresholds at
this time, the Exchange is therefore not proposing to include leveraged
ETPs for now.
    As proposed, the list includes broad-based ETPs, which the Exchange
recognizes has raised some debate. In particular, concerns have been
raised about whether halting an index-based ETP may impact an index-
based option or future. However, the Exchange believes that including
broad-based ETPs is appropriate so that ETP investors are protected
should the component securities experience such volatility that trading
in the broad-based ETP is impacted, as it was on May 6, 2010. Because
this is a pilot rule, the markets can continue to assess whether it is
appropriate to have a trading pause in broad-based ETPs when there is
not a similar trading pause in related index-based options or futures.
    As noted above, during the pilot, the Exchange will continue to re-
assess whether specific ETPs should be added or removed from the pilot
list. The Exchange will also assess whether the parameters for invoking
a trading pause continue to be the appropriate standard and whether the
parameters should be modified.
    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend
Interpretations and Policies .06 to Rule 2 to provide that the pilot
applies to all securities in the S&P 500, securities in the Russell
1000, as well as specified ETPs. The pilot list of ETPs are identified
in Exhibit 3.
    The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposal is substantially
similar to the submissions of other U.S. equities exchanges concerning
circuit breaker provisions for individual securities and which are
under consideration by the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), which requires the rules
of an exchange to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change also is
designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act in
that it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and dealers and
among exchange markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
meets these requirements in that it promotes uniformity across markets
concerning decisions to pause trading in a security when there are
significant price movements.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that the Exchange has requested
accelerated approval of the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
    The Commission notes that ETF trades constituted a substantial
majority of the trades that were cancelled on May 6, and the proposed
amendments would bring certain ETFs within the scope of the trading
pause pilot for the first time. The Commission solicits comment
regarding the inclusion of ETFs within the trading pause pilot. The
Commission requests comment in particular on the implications of
including in the trading pause pilot ETFs on broad-based indices that
also underlie options and futures products. What are the potential
benefits and risks of including those ETFs in the pilot under
circumstances where other products based on the same index may not be
subject to any trading pause, or may be subject to a different type of
trading pause? Are existing mechanisms available in the markets for
those other products sufficient to address any cross-market linkage
concerns? What are the potential effects on price discovery and trading
behavior in the different markets?
    Similarly, the Commission solicits comments on the potential
benefits and risks of excluding such ETFs from the pilot, particularly
under circumstances where the securities underlying the ETF are
included in the pilot. If there are trading pauses for the component

securities of an index but not for an ETF based on that index, what
consequences might that have for the ETF or for other products based on
that index? If there are trading pauses in an ETF but not in the stocks
that underlie that ETF, what consequences might that have for the
underlying stocks or other products? What are the potential effects on
price discovery for the ETF, the underlying stocks and other products?
    Are there other market-based characteristics or metrics that should
be considered for purposes of determining which ETFs should be included
in the trading pause pilot, or for re-calibrating particular features
of the trading pause?
    In addition, the Commission solicits comments regarding the
operation of the trading pause pilot to date with respect to stocks in
the S&P 500.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2010-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2010-14. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.

To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CHX-2010-14, and should be submitted on or before July
19, 2010.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission believes that a 10-day comment period is
reasonable, given the urgency of the matter. It will provide
adequate time for comment.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16402 Filed 7-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SafeWater LCR User Guide and Description of Source Code
This memo describes how to install and use SafeWater LCR to 1) create a sample population of public water systems and 2) run the different cost models for the previous rule and final rule. The memo describes the pdf versions of the source code used for SafeWater LCR.
    Installing and Using SafeWater LCR
The SafeWater LCR executable program and most of the associated data has been provided as a zip file titled SafeWaterLCR_Executables&DataFiles. The zip file contains the SafeWater LCR executable (SafeWaterRun.exe), the configuration settings (config.ini), and a folder containing the following required data files:
 "Data"
 High bound estimate access databases for LCR, LCRR, and proposed LCRI in a "High_Database" folder
 LCR_DataRequest_high.accdb
 LCR_DataRequest_high.xlsm
 LCRR_DataRequest_high.accdb
 LCRR_DataRequest_high.xlsm
 LCRI_DataRequest_high.accdb
 LCRI_DataRequest_high.xlsm
 Low bound estimate access databases for LCR, LCRR, and proposed LCRI in a "Low_Database" folder
 LCR_DataRequest_low.accdb
 LCR_DataRequest_low.xlsm
 LCRR_DataRequest_low.accdb
 LCRR_DataRequest_low.xlsm
 LCRI_DataRequest_low.accdb
 LCRI_DataRequest_low.xlsm
 the cost equations spreadsheets for the LCR, LCRR, and proposed LCRI
 LCR_Baseline.xlsx (LCR_Baseline_v8.xlsx)
 LCRR_Baseline.xlsx (LCRR_Baseline_v17.xlsx)
 LCRI_Option.xlsx (Working_Option_v22.xlsx)
 SDWIS Inventory
 sdwis_2023.xlsx
 Unique data variables for the school sampling program
 state_school_samp_data.xlsx
 Unique data for systems service greater than 1M customers
 VLSEntryPointValues.xlsx
 VLSSystemData.xlsx
The steps to install SafeWater LCR are as follows:
 Extract the files from the zip file titled SafeWaterLCR_Executables&DataFiles and save in a folder named "SafeWaterLCR."
The steps to use SafeWater LCR are as follows:
 Create the sample: This creates the CSV files of the public water system variables that SafeWater LCR reads based on SDWIS variables and the database variables. A sample must be created for each previous rule and final rule option the user wishes to generate.
 Open the executable LCRSample in the "SafeWaterLCR" folder; this will pull up a prompt that allows the user to create the sample files.
 In the "Excel Input" field, load the SDWIS_CWS_2016_Q3 (sdwis_2023.xlsx) file saved in the "Data" folder.
 Select LCRR in the "Baseline" dropdown. This selection is currently ignored since the sample creation run will create all the necessary sample input files.
 Select LCRI in "Option Name" dropdown.
 Enter a value in "Sample Name" (5-6 characters).
 In the "LCR Baseline Costing Logic Workbook" field load LCR_Baseline_v8.xlsx.
 In the "LCR Baseline Variable Database" field, load the LCR_DataRequest_High.accdb file to create the High LSLs sample files.
 In the "LCRR Baseline Costing Logic Workbook" field, load LCRR_Baseline_v17.xlsx.
 In the "LCRR Baseline Variable Database" field, load LCRR_DataRequest_High.accdb.
 In the "Option Costing Logic Workbook" field, load Working_Option_v22.xlsx.
 In the "Option Variable Database" field, load LCRI_DataRequest_High.accdb.
 In the "Minimum # of PWS per Size/SW category" to run a replicated sample, which is necessary to capture the variability contained in the database variables, enter the minimum number of replicated systems desired and uncheck the "Do not replicate" field (the results presented in the final rule economic analysis relied on 5,000 as the minimum number of systems per size and source water category).
 In the "Create Proxy PWS Records" field, check the box to create the proxy records necessary to examine the cost of the small system and non-transient noncommunity water system (NTNCWS) flexibility final rule requirement.
 In the "Small Proxy Cutoff Population" field, enter the appropriate desired population threshold below which the small system flexibilities will be applied. The appropriate value should be 10000.
 Ensure that the "Make LCR Baseline", "Make LCRR Baseline" and "Make Option" fields are selected in order to generate a sample for the previous rule and the final rule.
 Select the "LSL Level" dropdown to High
 Ensure that the "PWS90Pct Bp1" and the "PWS90Pct Bp2" fields contain 10 and 15, respectively. These fields are currently not used.
 Ensure that the "Create Profile Sample" field is unchecked unless the user requires a sample of the sample output to be generated.
 Click "Make Sample" to create PWS samples for the previous and final rule.
 The generated PWS samples for the previous rule and the final rule option will be saved in the "Data" folder.
Note to create the Low LSLs sample files, choose the *_DataRequest_Low.accdb files  		for the "LCR Baseline Variable Database", "LCRR Baseline Variable Database" and 		"Option Variable Database" inputs.
 Generate the cost and benefit results for the preferred option run:
 Open the executable SafeWaterLCR in the "SafeWaterLCR" folder; this will pull up a prompt that allows the user to tailor the SafeWater LCR run.
 If a pop-up appears requesting confirmation that the user wants to load a saved configuration, select "No."
 In the "Run Name" field, give the run a name.
 For the "Baseline Name" dropdown, select LCRR. For the "Option Name" dropdown, select LCRI.
 Ensure that the "CodeSite logging" and "DELAWARE" fields are unchecked. These fields and the "Test Parser" button above are used for debugging. Ensure the "Use Compiled Cost" is checked.
 In the "Run Description" field, provide an optional description, which will be saved in the log file generated by that run of the SafeWaterLCR program.
 In the "CVDDR," "IQVal," "IQDR," and "Child BL" fields enter the appropriate values for the desired benefit options, with 0 for normal.
 Ensure that the "No BL Averaging" field is unchecked, unless the user requires a run with averaged blood levels.
 For the "LCR Baseline Database" field, load LCR_DataRequest_High.accdb.
 Ensure "Use LCR Baseline" is checked.
 For the "Baseline SDWIS Sample File" field, load LCRRBaseline_Rep5K_high.csv.
 For the "Option SDWIS Sample File" field, load LCRIRep5K_high.csv.
 For the "Baseline Costing Logic Workbook" field, load LCRR_Baseline_v17.xlsx.
 For the "Baseline Variable Database" field, load LCRR_DataRequest_High.accdb.
 For the "Option Costing Logic Workbook" field, load Working_Option_v22.xlsx.
 For the "Option Variable Database" field, load LCRI_DataRequest_High.accdb.
 For the "Population" field, select the desired public water system option (Both).
 In the "Discount" field, select the desired discount rate (i.e., 3% or 7%).
 In the "Small Proxy Cutoff Population" field, enter the appropriate desired population threshold below which the small system flexibilities will be applied (3300).
 For the "LCRI Option ALE" dropdown, select the appropriate value. (10)
 For the "WQP Monitoring Size Cutoff" dropdown, select nothing. I don't think this is used.
 For the "LCRI LSL Option" dropdown, select the appropriate value. (1)
 For the "Temp POU Option" dropdown, select the appropriate value. (3)
 For the "LSLR Rate" dropdown, select the appropriate value. (0.10)
 Select Filters for LSL/Uknown appropriately.
 Select Low / High radio buttons to match LSLs option.
 For the "LSLR Deferral Cap" dropdown, select the appropriate value. (10000)
 In the "School option" field, select the desired school option. (school_3a)
 Ensure that the "No Random," "Output Lead Bins," "DebugOut," and "CCT Partial to Full" fields are unchecked. These are used for debugging.
 Ensure that the "Small System Flexibility" field is checked.
 In the "CCT Cost Equations" field, select the desired CCT cost equations. (High)
 Select either "Full Run" to generate the results for the incremental run, "Baseline Only" to generate the results for the previous rule, or "Option Only" to generate the results for the final rule.
 Ensure that the "Micro Output" and "Undiscounted Ben by Year" fields are unchecked. These are used for debugging.
 Ensure Run Adult Benefits is checked.
 Click "Run Model" to begin the SafeWater LCR run.
 The results will be saved in the "User" folder within the "SafeWaterLCR" parent folder.
 Multiple runs can occur at once. To do so, minimize the existing SafeWater LCR window and repeat the above steps.
SafeWater LCR Source Code
In addition to the SafeWater LCR executables and user guide, the EPA is providing pdfs of the Delphi code used for SafeWater LCR in the zip file titled SafeWaterLCR_sourcecode, which is available in the LCRR docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017_0300) and on the EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/final-revisions-lead-and-copper-rule.
In addition to Delphi 11.2 source code, the following third party components are required to compile the code:
:: HtmlViewer-HtmlViewer-11.7
:: CodeSite_5_Express_RX101
Links to the third party vendors are provided at the end of this memo.
The file structure for the zip drive SafeWaterLCR_sourcecode is as follows:
 The code used for the SafeWater LCR program is contained in the folders "Code," "codeLCRR," and "uiLCRR."
 The code used for the SafeWater LCR sample creation is contained in the folders "LCRISample," "Code," and "codeLCRR."
Third Party Links
HtmlViewer-HtmlViewer-11.7: https://github.com/BerndGabriel/HtmlViewer
CodeSite_5_Express_RX101: https://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi