Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 19009-19012 [2014-07569]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19009
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Name of non-regulatory
SIP revision
Applicable
geographic area
State submittal
date
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8Hour Ozone NAAQS.
*
Statewide ..........
*
8/31/11, 2/17/12
EPA approval date
2/17/12
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0413; FRL–9909–10–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 Lead
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania pursuant to the Clean Air
Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA
requires states to submit a plan for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS. The plan is
required to address basic program
elements, including, but not limited to
regulatory structure, monitoring,
modeling, legal authority, and adequate
resources necessary to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards.
These elements are referred to as
infrastructure requirements. The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has
made a submittal addressing the
infrastructure requirements for the 2008
lead (Pb) NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
May 7, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
14:32 Apr 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
*
4/7/2014 [Insert Federal
Register page number
where the document
begins and date].
*
[FR Doc. 2014–07589 Filed 4–4–14; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
10/17/12, 77 FR 63736
Additional explanation
*
*
*
Approval of the following PSD-related elements or
portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J),
except taking no action on the definition of
‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14
section 2.66 only as it relates to the requirement to include condensable emissions of particulate matter in that definition. See
§ 52.2522(i).
This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
*
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0413. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the electronic docket,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., confidential business
information (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 through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for
public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality
Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ruth Knapp, (215) 814–2191, or by
email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of SIP Revision
On July 16, 2013 (78 FR 42482), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
proposing approval of Pennsylvania’s
September 24, 2012 SIP submittal to
satisfy several requirements of section
110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. In the NPR, EPA proposed
approval of the following infrastructure
elements: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The
NPR does not include section
110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the
nonattainment planning requirements of
part D, Title I of the CAA, since this
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
element is not required to be submitted
by the 3-year submission deadline of
section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed
in a separate process. EPA is taking
separate action on the portion of
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to CAA
section 128 (State Boards).
The rationale supporting EPA’s
proposed action, including the scope of
infrastructure SIPs in general, is
explained in the NPR and the technical
support document (TSD) accompanying
the NPR and will not be restated here.
The TSD is available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number
EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0413. On August
20, 2013, EPA received public
comments on its July 16, 2013 NPR from
the Berks County Commissioners
(referred to herein as the commenter). A
summary of the comments submitted
and EPA’s responses are provided in
section II of this action.
II. Summary of Public Comments and
EPA Responses
Comment: The commenter has raised
several concerns related to lead
monitoring and permitting in Berks
County, Pennsylvania near the Exide
Technologies secondary lead smelter
facility (Exide). The commenter does
not believe that EPA should approve the
lead infrastructure SIP submitted by the
Commonwealth for the 2008 lead
NAAQS for several reasons, most of
which are related to the commenter’s
concerns about the adequacy of the lead
monitoring network and relate to the
commenter’s interpretation of the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) of
the CAA.
First, the commenter contends that
the existing network being used by the
Commonwealth is not adequate and
does not meet applicable EPA guidance
(EPA–454/R–92–009) and 40 CFR part
58 Appendix D. Specifically, the
commenter contends that the two
E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM
07APR1
19010
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
monitoring stations (Laureldale South
and Laureldale North) being used by the
Commonwealth to assess lead NAAQS
compliance in the area are not located
at points of maximum ambient
concentration and asserts the
Pennsylvania monitors must be located
at the point of maximum concentration.
Additionally, the commenter states
other lead monitors in the area show
higher concentrations of lead. The
commenter states that the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) refused to consider
voluminous monitoring station data
demonstrating more significant
nonattainment than at the PADEP
monitors. The commenter believes these
monitors, known as the St. Mike’s
monitors, operated and collected data
until at least April 2013.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
commenter regarding the adequacy of
Pennsylvania’s lead monitoring
network. The Laureldale South lead
monitor (AQS ID 42–011–0717) was
established January 1, 1976 and has
been in continual operation since that
date. The monitor has been effective in
identifying violations of the Pb NAAQS
as recently as January 2013.
Additionally, collocated monitors were
established at Laureldale North (AQS ID
42–011–0020) on January 1, 2010 to
comply with the November 2008 lead
NAAQS.1 The monitors at Laureldale
North have also been effective in
identifying violations of the lead
NAAQS as recently as December 2012.
Section 4.5(a) of Appendix D to 40
CFR part 58 provides for siting of
monitors where lead concentrations
from all sources are expected to be at
the maximum taking into account
logistics and the potential for
population exposure. PADEP has
effectively deployed monitors in
locations that are both within the
bounds of the 2008 rule and 40 CFR part
58 Appendix D considering important
factors such as logistics, while still
identifying local NAAQS violations.
1 The EPA issued a final rule on November 12,
2008 that revised the NAAQS for lead and
associated ambient air lead monitoring
requirements (73 FR 66964, codified at 40 CFR part
58). As part of the lead monitoring requirements,
monitoring agencies are required to monitor
ambient air near lead sources which are expected
to or have been shown to have a potential to
contribute to a 3-month average lead concentration
in ambient air in excess of the level of the NAAQS.
At a minimum, 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D requires
monitoring agencies to monitor near non-airport
lead sources that emit 0.50 ton per year (tpy) or
more into the ambient air. Pennsylvania’s monitors
at Laureldale South and Laureldale North monitor
near a lead source (Exide) that emits or has emitted
over 0.50 tpy or more of lead, and the monitors
meet the EPA’s monitor requirements from the 2008
rule and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:32 Apr 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
Prior to deploying the Laureldale
North monitors, PADEP submitted a
modeling study and conducted site
visits with EPA. PADEP evaluated the
location of the St. Mike’s monitors
during this period but concluded that
the existing electrical power
infrastructure at the St. Mike’s
monitoring site was insufficient to
support and maintain appropriate staterun monitors in addition to the existing
St. Mike’s monitors operated and
maintained by Exide at the St. Mike’s
monitor locations. During PADEP’s
study, PADEP concluded it would need
additional infrastructure including a
new transformer and additional power
poles to add monitors at the St. Mike’s
location, which was a logistical
impediment to locating any monitor at
these locations given the additional
financial costs of using these sites.
PADEP selected the Laureldale North
site because it was logistically feasible;
analysis indicated it would monitor
levels above the NAAQS; and it met
siting requirements of CFR part 58
appendix D. Subsequently, the
Laureldale North site was properly sited
and has recorded monitored violations
of the 2008 lead NAAQS with
appropriately quality assured and
quality controlled data in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58. Since this location
along with Laureldale South has
recorded violations of the NAAQS,
these sites may need to be maintained
for decades after the area reaches
attainment.
The current location of the monitors
(Laureldale North and South) was
approved by EPA based on the modeling
study in conjunction with 40 CFR part
58 Appendix D paragraph 4.5(a), which
provides in part that many factors like
logistics are considered when deploying
any ambient air monitor other than
simply the modeled maximum
concentration. Such factors include, but
are not limited to, access, leasing
agreements, accessibility to electricity,
costs and worker safety. PADEP’s
conclusions regarding appropriate
monitors for the 2008 lead NAAQS was
reasonable based on the factors PADEP
considered, including logistics. EPA
believes Pennsylvania has valid
concerns regarding logistics and
resources with adding additional
monitors (or relocating monitors) in this
area (including at the St. Mike’s
locations). EPA has approved
Pennsylvania’s 2013 annual ambient air
monitoring network plan and earlier
plans because they met the
requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
It appears from material submitted by
the commenter that the commenter has
at times in the past indicated to PADEP
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that it would help ‘‘defray’’ some costs
if PADEP were to place a monitor at the
St. Mike’s sites.2 However, the current
monitoring network meets the
applicable requirements and
establishing an additional monitor
would lead to PADEP incurring
significant costs for lab work, personnel,
and maintenance associated with
Pennsylvania operating an additional
monitor. While the commenter states
that it offered to ‘‘help offset’’ some of
the operational costs of Pennsylvania
maintaining and operating an
appropriate monitor at the St. Mike’s
location in addition to the Laureldale
North and South monitors, the
commenter has not established any
factual evidence or assurances to
contradict Pennsylvania’s concerns
about maintaining such a monitoring
site over many years if needed. Since
the current network meets the
applicable requirements, EPA believes
Pennsylvania’s logistical and financial
concerns still support its Laureldale
North and South monitors as adequate
for the 2008 lead NAAQS, as they are
appropriate devices and methods to
monitor, compile and analyze data on
ambient air quality as required by
section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA.
EPA concludes that Pennsylvania
meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA for monitoring
for the 2008 lead NAAQS, as discussed
in EPA’s Lead Infrastructure Guidance
and as described in detail in EPA’s
technical support document
accompanying the NPR. EPA’s analysis
will not be restated here. The TSD is
available in the docket for this action at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number
EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0413. While the
St. Mike’s monitors which are not
included in Pennsylvania’s approved
monitoring network may show
divergent ambient lead concentration
data from the Laureldale North and
South monitors, EPA does not view that
data as dispositive regarding the
adequacy of Pennsylvania’s monitoring
network for the 2008 lead NAAQS,
particularly in light of the logistical
issues discussed above. Pennsylvania’s
network meets all applicable
2 EPA believes these nonapproved monitors
which were referred to by the commenter as the St.
Mike’s monitors were owned and operated by Exide
until at least January 2012 at which point EPA
believes Exide ceased operating the monitors
because the facility also ceased operation. While the
commenter asserts the St. Mike’s monitors were
operated through at least April 2013, and EPA
believes the monitors ceased operations sooner,
EPA does not believe the date the St. Mike’s
monitors stopped operating and collecting data is
relevant to the issue here which is the adequacy of
Pennsylvania’s monitoring network for the 2008
lead NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM
07APR1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
requirements in the 2008 rule, 40 CFR
part 58 Appendix D and in applicable
EPA guidance (EPA–454/R–92–009).
EPA notes that data from monitors
which do not meet federal monitoring
requirements, such as the Federal
quality assurance and quality control
requirements in Appendices A, C, and
E to 40 CFR part 58, have limited use
and cannot be compared to the NAAQS
for regulatory purposes by EPA.
EPA also notes that because
Laureldale North and South have shown
recent violations of the 2008 lead
NAAQS with appropriately quality
assured, quality controlled data from a
monitor system audited by an
independent auditor for performance,
any monitor data from nonapproved
monitors which may show potentially
higher lead concentrations would likely
not alter the nonattainment status or
requirements of the area near the Exide
facility. EPA also notes that the area is
required to attain the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than December 31, 2015, and the area
would generally need both a modeling
analysis and monitored data to
demonstrate it was attaining the
NAAQS.
Comment: The commenter also asserts
that the Laureldale North monitor was
not placed in an appropriate location
because the analysis used for siting its
location did not assess fugitive lead
emissions from the Exide facility. The
commenter states that the PADEP has
taken no apparent action with respect to
the issues regarding the Title V permit
for Exide which has allegedly been
remanded to PADEP for further
consideration of fugitive lead emissions
and that PADEP’s failure to make final
determinations regarding accurate
identification and quantification of
fugitive emissions from the Exide
facility exacerbates the inaccuracy of the
SIP monitoring station conclusions
made by PADEP.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
commenter regarding the alleged
inadequacy of Pennsylvania’s lead
monitoring network due to failure to
assess fugitive lead emissions when
siting the monitors. EPA is aware that
PADEP did not use fugitive emission
sources in their 2009 modeling study of
Exide prior to deployment of the
Laureldale North monitors. However,
fugitive emissions are extremely
difficult to quantify, there is no standard
way to do so, and inclusion in the
modeling would have added to
uncertainty already inherent in the
model. Additionally, ground-level
fugitive emissions do not travel far from
the source and stay inside or very near
the property fenceline. Therefore, EPA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:32 Apr 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
does not consider the lack of fugitive
emissions from Pennsylvania’s
modeling as dispositive to EPA’s
conclusion that Pennsylvania’s lead
monitors are adequate for the 2008 lead
NAAQS as required by the 2008 rule
and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D and
adequate to meet the requirements of
section110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA.3
Comment: The commenter alleges that
EPA should not approve the
Pennsylvania infrastructure submittal
for the 2008 lead NAAQS because the
lead monitoring network does not
ensure that any future lead NAAQS
attainment determinations are accurate
and ‘‘will result in inaccurate NAAQS
compliance conclusions.’’ The
commenter states PADEP’s refusal to
consider data from other monitors will
allow unacceptable risk and/or actual
harm to residents in the nonattainment
area.
Response: As noted earlier in this
rulemaking action, EPA has concluded
that the existing monitors satisfy the
requirements of part 58. Furthermore,
the existing monitors have identified
nonattainment at this site and as a
result, the area is required to develop a
plan to attain the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than December 31, 2015. Before the area
is redesignated to attainment, the area
would generally need both a modeling
analysis and monitored data to
demonstrate it was attaining the
NAAQS. To the extent the commenter
believes that the attainment
demonstration and associated modeling
is inadequate to assure compliance with
the NAAQS in the entire nonattainment
area, EPA believes the commenter
should raise those concerns with
Pennsylvania, and EPA, at the time for
public comment on those documents.4
The NAAQS are established to provide
protection for public health (including
the health of sensitive populations such
as children) with an adequate margin of
safety. Thus, EPA believes that
attainment of the NAAQS throughout
the nonattainment area will prevent
harm to local residents from lead
emitted to the ambient air.5
3 To the extent the commenter is objecting to the
lack of action on the facility’s remanded Title V
permit, those issues are outside the scope of this
proceeding and should be pursued by the
commenter within the Title V administrative
process for permits.
4 As noted above, however, EPA gives, at most,
limited weight to monitoring data that does not
meet the regulatory requirements for comparison to
the NAAQS, such as those set forth in Appendices
A, C, and E of part 58.
5 If EPA revises the lead NAAQS in the future, a
separate infrastructure submittal that addresses the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA
will be developed by Pennsylvania for EPA’s review
and approval.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19011
III. Final Action
EPA is approving, as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP, Pennsylvania’s
September 24, 2012 submittal which
provides the basic program elements
specified in sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
(E)(i),(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L),
and (M) of the CAA, necessary to
implement, maintain, and enforce the
2008 Pb NAAQS. This rulemaking
action does not include approval of
Pennsylvania’s submittal for section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) which pertains to CAA
section 128 and which EPA will address
in a separate action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this 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
E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM
07APR1
19012
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 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.
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
Name of non-regulatory SIP
revision
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by June 6, 2014. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the
finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action pertaining to
Pennsylvania’s section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS, may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)
Applicable
geographic area
State
submittal
date
*
*
*
Section 110(a)(2) InfrastrucStatewide ...........
ture Requirements for the
2008 Pb NAAQS.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0681; FRL–9909–07–
Region–9]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; Hawaii;
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving elements of
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Hawaii on February 13, 2013, pursuant
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:32 Apr 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
5/24/12
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph
(e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for
section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS at
the end of the table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2020
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
*
*
*
*
4/7/2014 [Insert Federal Register page number where
the document begins and
date].
*
*
This rulemaking action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
Effective Date: This final rule is
effective on May 7, 2014.
EPA has established a
docket for this action, identified by
Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR–
2013–0681. The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
ADDRESSES:
Frm 00026
Dated: March 21, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
Additional explanation
DATES:
PO 00000
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
EPA approval date
to the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act) for the 2008 Lead (Pb)
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.
[FR Doc. 2014–07569 Filed 4–4–14; 8:45 am]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed directly
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dawn Richmond, Air Planning Office
(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3207,
richmond.dawn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 23, 2013 (78 FR 63145),
EPA proposed to approve elements of
the Hawaii State Implementation Plan
Revision for 2008 Lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standard, Clean
Air Act § 110(a)(1) and (2) (February 13,
2013) (‘‘Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP’’),
submitted by the State of Hawaii on
E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM
07APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19009-19012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07569]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0413; FRL-9909-10-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or
revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are promulgated,
the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The plan is required to
address basic program elements, including, but not limited to
regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and
adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has made a submittal
addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb)
NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 7, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0413. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Knapp, (215) 814-2191, or by
email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of SIP Revision
On July 16, 2013 (78 FR 42482), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proposing
approval of Pennsylvania's September 24, 2012 SIP submittal to satisfy
several requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of the following
infrastructure elements: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I),
(D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and
(M). The NPR does not include section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to
the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA,
since this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year
submission deadline of section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a
separate process. EPA is taking separate action on the portion of
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to CAA section 128 (State Boards).
The rationale supporting EPA's proposed action, including the scope
of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the NPR and the
technical support document (TSD) accompanying the NPR and will not be
restated here. The TSD is available online at www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0413. On August 20, 2013, EPA
received public comments on its July 16, 2013 NPR from the Berks County
Commissioners (referred to herein as the commenter). A summary of the
comments submitted and EPA's responses are provided in section II of
this action.
II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses
Comment: The commenter has raised several concerns related to lead
monitoring and permitting in Berks County, Pennsylvania near the Exide
Technologies secondary lead smelter facility (Exide). The commenter
does not believe that EPA should approve the lead infrastructure SIP
submitted by the Commonwealth for the 2008 lead NAAQS for several
reasons, most of which are related to the commenter's concerns about
the adequacy of the lead monitoring network and relate to the
commenter's interpretation of the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B)
of the CAA.
First, the commenter contends that the existing network being used
by the Commonwealth is not adequate and does not meet applicable EPA
guidance (EPA-454/R-92-009) and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D.
Specifically, the commenter contends that the two
[[Page 19010]]
monitoring stations (Laureldale South and Laureldale North) being used
by the Commonwealth to assess lead NAAQS compliance in the area are not
located at points of maximum ambient concentration and asserts the
Pennsylvania monitors must be located at the point of maximum
concentration.
Additionally, the commenter states other lead monitors in the area
show higher concentrations of lead. The commenter states that the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) refused to
consider voluminous monitoring station data demonstrating more
significant nonattainment than at the PADEP monitors. The commenter
believes these monitors, known as the St. Mike's monitors, operated and
collected data until at least April 2013.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding the adequacy
of Pennsylvania's lead monitoring network. The Laureldale South lead
monitor (AQS ID 42-011-0717) was established January 1, 1976 and has
been in continual operation since that date. The monitor has been
effective in identifying violations of the Pb NAAQS as recently as
January 2013. Additionally, collocated monitors were established at
Laureldale North (AQS ID 42-011-0020) on January 1, 2010 to comply with
the November 2008 lead NAAQS.\1\ The monitors at Laureldale North have
also been effective in identifying violations of the lead NAAQS as
recently as December 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA issued a final rule on November 12, 2008 that
revised the NAAQS for lead and associated ambient air lead
monitoring requirements (73 FR 66964, codified at 40 CFR part 58).
As part of the lead monitoring requirements, monitoring agencies are
required to monitor ambient air near lead sources which are expected
to or have been shown to have a potential to contribute to a 3-month
average lead concentration in ambient air in excess of the level of
the NAAQS. At a minimum, 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D requires
monitoring agencies to monitor near non-airport lead sources that
emit 0.50 ton per year (tpy) or more into the ambient air.
Pennsylvania's monitors at Laureldale South and Laureldale North
monitor near a lead source (Exide) that emits or has emitted over
0.50 tpy or more of lead, and the monitors meet the EPA's monitor
requirements from the 2008 rule and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4.5(a) of Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 provides for siting
of monitors where lead concentrations from all sources are expected to
be at the maximum taking into account logistics and the potential for
population exposure. PADEP has effectively deployed monitors in
locations that are both within the bounds of the 2008 rule and 40 CFR
part 58 Appendix D considering important factors such as logistics,
while still identifying local NAAQS violations.
Prior to deploying the Laureldale North monitors, PADEP submitted a
modeling study and conducted site visits with EPA. PADEP evaluated the
location of the St. Mike's monitors during this period but concluded
that the existing electrical power infrastructure at the St. Mike's
monitoring site was insufficient to support and maintain appropriate
state-run monitors in addition to the existing St. Mike's monitors
operated and maintained by Exide at the St. Mike's monitor locations.
During PADEP's study, PADEP concluded it would need additional
infrastructure including a new transformer and additional power poles
to add monitors at the St. Mike's location, which was a logistical
impediment to locating any monitor at these locations given the
additional financial costs of using these sites.
PADEP selected the Laureldale North site because it was
logistically feasible; analysis indicated it would monitor levels above
the NAAQS; and it met siting requirements of CFR part 58 appendix D.
Subsequently, the Laureldale North site was properly sited and has
recorded monitored violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS with appropriately
quality assured and quality controlled data in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. Since this location along with Laureldale South has recorded
violations of the NAAQS, these sites may need to be maintained for
decades after the area reaches attainment.
The current location of the monitors (Laureldale North and South)
was approved by EPA based on the modeling study in conjunction with 40
CFR part 58 Appendix D paragraph 4.5(a), which provides in part that
many factors like logistics are considered when deploying any ambient
air monitor other than simply the modeled maximum concentration. Such
factors include, but are not limited to, access, leasing agreements,
accessibility to electricity, costs and worker safety. PADEP's
conclusions regarding appropriate monitors for the 2008 lead NAAQS was
reasonable based on the factors PADEP considered, including logistics.
EPA believes Pennsylvania has valid concerns regarding logistics and
resources with adding additional monitors (or relocating monitors) in
this area (including at the St. Mike's locations). EPA has approved
Pennsylvania's 2013 annual ambient air monitoring network plan and
earlier plans because they met the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
It appears from material submitted by the commenter that the
commenter has at times in the past indicated to PADEP that it would
help ``defray'' some costs if PADEP were to place a monitor at the St.
Mike's sites.\2\ However, the current monitoring network meets the
applicable requirements and establishing an additional monitor would
lead to PADEP incurring significant costs for lab work, personnel, and
maintenance associated with Pennsylvania operating an additional
monitor. While the commenter states that it offered to ``help offset''
some of the operational costs of Pennsylvania maintaining and operating
an appropriate monitor at the St. Mike's location in addition to the
Laureldale North and South monitors, the commenter has not established
any factual evidence or assurances to contradict Pennsylvania's
concerns about maintaining such a monitoring site over many years if
needed. Since the current network meets the applicable requirements,
EPA believes Pennsylvania's logistical and financial concerns still
support its Laureldale North and South monitors as adequate for the
2008 lead NAAQS, as they are appropriate devices and methods to
monitor, compile and analyze data on ambient air quality as required by
section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA believes these nonapproved monitors which were referred
to by the commenter as the St. Mike's monitors were owned and
operated by Exide until at least January 2012 at which point EPA
believes Exide ceased operating the monitors because the facility
also ceased operation. While the commenter asserts the St. Mike's
monitors were operated through at least April 2013, and EPA believes
the monitors ceased operations sooner, EPA does not believe the date
the St. Mike's monitors stopped operating and collecting data is
relevant to the issue here which is the adequacy of Pennsylvania's
monitoring network for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA concludes that Pennsylvania meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA for monitoring for the 2008 lead NAAQS, as
discussed in EPA's Lead Infrastructure Guidance and as described in
detail in EPA's technical support document accompanying the NPR. EPA's
analysis will not be restated here. The TSD is available in the docket
for this action at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0413. While the St. Mike's monitors which are not included in
Pennsylvania's approved monitoring network may show divergent ambient
lead concentration data from the Laureldale North and South monitors,
EPA does not view that data as dispositive regarding the adequacy of
Pennsylvania's monitoring network for the 2008 lead NAAQS, particularly
in light of the logistical issues discussed above. Pennsylvania's
network meets all applicable
[[Page 19011]]
requirements in the 2008 rule, 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D and in
applicable EPA guidance (EPA-454/R-92-009). EPA notes that data from
monitors which do not meet federal monitoring requirements, such as the
Federal quality assurance and quality control requirements in
Appendices A, C, and E to 40 CFR part 58, have limited use and cannot
be compared to the NAAQS for regulatory purposes by EPA.
EPA also notes that because Laureldale North and South have shown
recent violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS with appropriately quality
assured, quality controlled data from a monitor system audited by an
independent auditor for performance, any monitor data from nonapproved
monitors which may show potentially higher lead concentrations would
likely not alter the nonattainment status or requirements of the area
near the Exide facility. EPA also notes that the area is required to
attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
December 31, 2015, and the area would generally need both a modeling
analysis and monitored data to demonstrate it was attaining the NAAQS.
Comment: The commenter also asserts that the Laureldale North
monitor was not placed in an appropriate location because the analysis
used for siting its location did not assess fugitive lead emissions
from the Exide facility. The commenter states that the PADEP has taken
no apparent action with respect to the issues regarding the Title V
permit for Exide which has allegedly been remanded to PADEP for further
consideration of fugitive lead emissions and that PADEP's failure to
make final determinations regarding accurate identification and
quantification of fugitive emissions from the Exide facility
exacerbates the inaccuracy of the SIP monitoring station conclusions
made by PADEP.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding the alleged
inadequacy of Pennsylvania's lead monitoring network due to failure to
assess fugitive lead emissions when siting the monitors. EPA is aware
that PADEP did not use fugitive emission sources in their 2009 modeling
study of Exide prior to deployment of the Laureldale North monitors.
However, fugitive emissions are extremely difficult to quantify, there
is no standard way to do so, and inclusion in the modeling would have
added to uncertainty already inherent in the model. Additionally,
ground-level fugitive emissions do not travel far from the source and
stay inside or very near the property fenceline. Therefore, EPA does
not consider the lack of fugitive emissions from Pennsylvania's
modeling as dispositive to EPA's conclusion that Pennsylvania's lead
monitors are adequate for the 2008 lead NAAQS as required by the 2008
rule and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D and adequate to meet the
requirements of section110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To the extent the commenter is objecting to the lack of
action on the facility's remanded Title V permit, those issues are
outside the scope of this proceeding and should be pursued by the
commenter within the Title V administrative process for permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The commenter alleges that EPA should not approve the
Pennsylvania infrastructure submittal for the 2008 lead NAAQS because
the lead monitoring network does not ensure that any future lead NAAQS
attainment determinations are accurate and ``will result in inaccurate
NAAQS compliance conclusions.'' The commenter states PADEP's refusal to
consider data from other monitors will allow unacceptable risk and/or
actual harm to residents in the nonattainment area.
Response: As noted earlier in this rulemaking action, EPA has
concluded that the existing monitors satisfy the requirements of part
58. Furthermore, the existing monitors have identified nonattainment at
this site and as a result, the area is required to develop a plan to
attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
December 31, 2015. Before the area is redesignated to attainment, the
area would generally need both a modeling analysis and monitored data
to demonstrate it was attaining the NAAQS. To the extent the commenter
believes that the attainment demonstration and associated modeling is
inadequate to assure compliance with the NAAQS in the entire
nonattainment area, EPA believes the commenter should raise those
concerns with Pennsylvania, and EPA, at the time for public comment on
those documents.\4\ The NAAQS are established to provide protection for
public health (including the health of sensitive populations such as
children) with an adequate margin of safety. Thus, EPA believes that
attainment of the NAAQS throughout the nonattainment area will prevent
harm to local residents from lead emitted to the ambient air.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As noted above, however, EPA gives, at most, limited weight
to monitoring data that does not meet the regulatory requirements
for comparison to the NAAQS, such as those set forth in Appendices
A, C, and E of part 58.
\5\ If EPA revises the lead NAAQS in the future, a separate
infrastructure submittal that addresses the requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA will be developed by Pennsylvania for EPA's
review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
EPA is approving, as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP,
Pennsylvania's September 24, 2012 submittal which provides the basic
program elements specified in sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)(i),(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J),
(K), (L), and (M) of the CAA, necessary to implement, maintain, and
enforce the 2008 Pb NAAQS. This rulemaking action does not include
approval of Pennsylvania's submittal for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) which
pertains to CAA section 128 and which EPA will address in a separate
action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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
[[Page 19012]]
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 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.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to Pennsylvania's section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 21, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. In Sec. 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008
Pb NAAQS at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable geographic submittal EPA approval date Additional
revision area date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide................ 5/24/12 4/7/2014 [Insert This rulemaking
Requirements for the 2008 Pb Federal Register action addresses
NAAQS. page number where the following CAA
the document elements:
begins and date]. 110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (C),
(D)(i)(I),
(D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J),
(K), (L), and
(M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-07569 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
