Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the North Reading Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 1136-1141 [2015-33303]

Download as PDF 1136 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0773; FRL–9941–07– Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the North Reading Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania). This revision pertains to the Commonwealth’s attainment plan for the North Reading nonattainment area (‘‘North Reading Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) for the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and includes a base year emissions inventory, an analysis of reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including reasonably available control technology (RACT)), a plan for reasonable further progress (RFP), a modeling demonstration of lead NAAQS attainment, and contingency measures. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 10, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2015–0773 by one of the following methods: A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0773, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2015– 0773. 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 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:27 Jan 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email. 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. 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 in www.regulations.gov or may be viewed 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: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 12, 2015, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to its SIP for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the North Reading Area. Pennsylvania’s lead attainment plan for the Area includes a base year emissions inventory, a PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 modeling demonstration of lead NAAQS attainment, an analysis of RACM, RACT, and RFP, and contingency measures. The attainment plan includes portions of two Consent Order and Agreements (COA) between PADEP and Exide Technologies (Exide) and Yuasa Battery, Inc. (Yuasa) which demonstrate how Pennsylvania will achieve and maintain compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS. The lead attainment plan specifically includes paragraph 3 of the COA between Exide and PADEP, dated June 15, 2015, and paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA between Yuasa and PADEP, dated June 12, 2015. EPA has determined that Pennsylvania’s attainment plan for the 2008 lead NAAQS for the North Reading Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania’s attainment plan for the North Reading Area and paragraphs 3, 5, and 22, respectively, of the COAs between PADEP and Exide and Yuasa, as submitted on August 12, 2015. EPA’s analysis and findings are discussed for each applicable requirement in this rulemaking action. The three Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for this proposed action contain additional details on the base year inventory, modeling, control strategies, RFP, and contingency measures of the attainment demonstration. Copies of these TSDs can be found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA–R03– OAR–2015–0773) at www.regulations.gov. I. Background The North Reading attainment plan assesses lead emissions within the Area. Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and present in some manufactured products. Human exposure to lead can cause a variety of adverse health effects, especially in children.1 Lead is emitted into the air from many sources, encompassing a wide variety of stationary and mobile source types. In the United States, there has been a decrease in the emissions of lead from mobile sources, resulting from the reduction of lead additives to fuel. Most of the lead emissions in the North Reading Area come from permitted stationary sources within the Area. On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established a 2008 primary and secondary lead NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 1 A more detailed analysis of adverse health effects associated with lead exposure can be found in the Preamble of the 2008 lead NAAQS final rule, published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2008. See 73 FR 66964. E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS based on a maximum arithmetic 3month mean concentration for a 3-year period. See 40 CFR 50.16. Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA, as described in section 107(d)(1), to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA published its initial air quality designations and classifications for the 2008 lead NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2007–2009. The November 22, 2010 notice included the nonattainment designation of the North Reading Area; an area within Berks County in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded by Alsace Township, Laureldale Borough, and Muhlenberg Township. See 76 FR 72097. The November 22, 2010 designations, including the North Reading Area nonattainment designation, became effective on December 31, 2010.2 The designation of the North Reading Area as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS triggered requirements under section 191(a) of the CAA, requiring Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the Area will attain the 2008 lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2015. II. Summary of SIP Revision On August 12, 2015, in accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, Pennsylvania submitted an attainment plan for the North Reading Area which includes a base year emissions inventory, an attainment demonstration, an analysis of RACM and RACT, provisions for RFP, and contingency measures. The SIP revision also includes paragraph 3 of the COA between Exide and PADEP and paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA between Yuasa and PADEP. EPA’s analysis of the submitted attainment plan includes a review of these elements for the North Reading Area. As part of the promulgation of the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA revised the air monitoring requirements for lead. In accordance with the revised monitoring requirements, air monitors near sources in Pennsylvania that emit one ton per year (tpy) or more were in place by January 2010. The monitoring requirements for lead were further revised on December 27, 2010, when EPA lowered the monitoring 2 EPA completed a second and final round of designations for the 2008 lead NAAQS on November 22, 2011. See 76 FR 72097. No additional areas in Pennsylvania were designated as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS in the November 22, 2011 designations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:27 Jan 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 requirement for stationary sources down to those that emit 0.5 tpy of lead among other changes. See 75 FR 81126. Pennsylvania’s lead monitoring network consists of lead monitors that have been designated by EPA as either Reference or Equivalent monitors and are subject to the federal quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. All samplers are located at sites that have met the minimum siting requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E. PADEP currently operates two ambient air monitors in the North Reading Area. The Laureldale South monitor has been in place since 1976 and the Laureldale North monitor since January 1, 2010.3 As required in 40 CFR 58.10, Pennsylvania must provide EPA with an annual network design plan in order to inform both EPA and the public of any planned changes to the sampling network for the next year. EPA approved Pennsylvania’s 2015 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Design Plan, the most recent year available at the time of this evaluation, on November 12, 2015. 1. Emissions Inventory Requirements Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a state to submit a SIP that includes a ‘‘comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant’’ in the nonattainment area. In the 2008 lead NAAQS rulemaking on November 12, 2008, EPA finalized guidance related to the emissions inventories requirements for lead. See 73 FR 66964. For the base year inventory of actual lead emissions for CAA 172(c)(3), EPA recommends using either 2010 or 2011 as the base year, but does provide flexibility for using other inventory years if states can show another year is more appropriate. Additionally, EPA guidance provides that actual emissions should be used for purposes of the base year inventory.4 PADEP submitted a 3 The Laureldale North monitor (AQS 42–011– 0020) is associated with the Exide facility located in Berks County and was installed in accordance with EPA’s network design requirements for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 73 FR 66964. EPA reaffirmed placement of lead ambient air monitors in Pennsylvania when approving Pennsylvania’s lead infrastructure SIP for the 2008 NAAQS as meeting requirements in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. See 79 FR 19009 (April 7, 2014). EPA’s approval of the lead infrastructure SIP, particularly regarding the approval of Pennsylvania’s monitoring locations for section 110(a)(2)(B), was upheld in 2015 by the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit. Berks County v. EPA, 3rd Cir. No. 14–2913, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14050 (August 11, 2015). 4 See ‘‘Addendum to the 2008 Lead NAAQS Implementation Questions and Answers’’ dated August 10, 2012, which is included in EPA’s SIP PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 1137 2010 inventory for the point sources of lead emissions in the North Reading Area, which includes Exide and Yuasa. For the nonpoint sources of lead emissions, PADEP submitted EPA’s 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) v2 data as a surrogate for the 2010 inventory. The nonpoint source values for the North Reading Area were calculated using Berks County data apportioned by population. EPA reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for Pennsylvania’s submission and found them to be reasonable for calculating the lead base year inventory for section 172(c)(3) of the CAA and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.117(e). A more detailed description of the PADEP’s use and calculation of inventories as well as EPA’s analysis of PADEP’s base inventory for CAA requirements is included in the TSD prepared in support of this proposed rulemaking action. A copy of the Base Inventory TSD can be found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA– R03–OAR–2015–0773) at www.regulations.gov. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the base year emissions inventory submitted by Pennsylvania on August 12, 2015, as it meets requirements in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. 2. Attainment Planning Modeling Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA and the lead SIP regulations found at 40 CFR 51.117 require states to employ atmospheric dispersion modeling for the demonstration of attainment of the lead NAAQS for areas in the vicinity of point sources listed in 40 CFR 51.117(a)(1), as expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and part 51, appendix W, and include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment. All these requirements comprise the ‘‘attainment plan’’ that is required for lead nonattainment areas. As part of a state’s attainment plan, 40 CFR 51.117(a) provides that states must include an analysis showing that the SIP will attain and maintain the standard in areas in the vicinity of certain point sources that are emitting significant emissions of lead and also in ‘‘[a]ny other area that has lead air concentrations in excess of the national ambient air quality standard concentration.’’ These sources include primary and secondary lead smelters, primary copper smelters, lead gasoline additive plants, lead-acid storage battery Toolkit located at www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/ implement.html. E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1 1138 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS manufacturing plants, and any other stationary source that emits 25 or more tpy of lead or lead compounds measured as elemental lead. 40 CFR 51.117(a)(1). In doing this analysis, EPA expects a state will take into consideration all sources of lead emissions within the nonattainment area that may be required to be controlled. In its SIP submittal, Pennsylvania identified one facility as having the potential to emit 0.5 tpy or more of lead in the North Reading Area. This facility, Exide Technologies, a secondary lead smelter, was included in PADEP’s modeling analysis. Yuasa, a lead-acid battery assembly plant located across the street from Exide, was also included in the modeling analysis. Lead emissions from nonpoint sources and mobile sources were also examined but found to be insignificant and while included in PADEP’s lead inventory, they were not included in the lead modeling demonstration due to their insignificance. In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, PADEP completed an airdispersion modeling analysis for base year and future year emission inventories representing Exide and Yuasa, with reported lead emissions in 2010 and projected emissions for 2015. The 2015 lead emissions were used in the modeled attainment demonstration to determine if projected lead emission rates would comply with the 2008 lead NAAQS. The 2015 lead emissions for Exide and Yuasa were determined by incorporating emission reductions from the implementation of the control measures set forth in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Lead Smelting sources (Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP) and from the stack-specific emission limits identified in the COAs between Pennsylvania and Exide and Yuasa.5 PADEP modeled seventy-seven lead emission sources for Exide and twenty-seven lead emission sources for Yuasa. Table 1 summarizes 2010 and 2015 lead emissions compiled by the Commonwealth for both Exide and Yuasa. 5 PADEP’s RACM/RACT proposal for Exide, which includes measures that would require the facility to meet the requirements of the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, is contained within Exide’s Plan Approval No. 06–05066I. VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:27 Jan 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 TABLE 1—NORTH READING LEAD SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY (TPY) 2010 lead emissions (actual) Lead source Exide ................. Yuasa ................ 1.0417 0.1520 2015 lead emissions (projected) 0.8991 0.0850 EPA has found that PADEP’s modeling demonstration was done in accordance with appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 and the modeling indicates that the Area will meet the 2008 lead NAAQS. Because the Area had monitored violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS in January 2013, before Exide began idling, the Area will not attain the NAAQS by December 2015 (the Area’s attainment date pursuant to section 192 of the CAA) based on ambient air quality over 36 consecutive 3-month periods. However, there have been no monthly periods which have exceeded 0.15 mg/ m3 since March 2013.6 7 As such, the 3month rolling averages from mid-year 2013 and after have been below 0.15 mg/ m3 and the Area is on track to meet the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA and PADEP expect the 2008 lead NAAQS to be attained on the basis of 2014–2016 ambient data as a result of implementation of PADEP’s August 12, 2015 SIP revision. The projected 2015 emissions inventory used the maximum allowable lead emissions for both Exide and Yuasa. While Exide is currently idling, it has not installed all of the control measures necessary for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP and its Plan Approval No. 06–05066I. However, pursuant to the COA between Exide and Pennsylvania, Exide cannot resume operations at the facility without demonstrating compliance with the control measures specified in the Plan Approval No. 06–05066I and in its COA. The future year maximum allowable lead emissions were developed from the control measures included in Pennsylvania’s attainment plan. However, even if Exide’s operations remain idled and controls not installed until it resumes operations, its potential lead emissions while idling will continue to be less than if it were operating under the NESHAP and COA controls and limits. 6 The daily averages used to calculate 3-month averages are given in appendices A–2 and A–3 in PADEP’s August 12, 2015 submittal, which can be found in docket for this rulemaking action. 7 Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality System Data Mart [internet database] available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/aqsdatamart. Accessed December 3, 2015. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 EPA has evaluated the information provided in the Commonwealth’s attainment plan for the North Reading Area and concludes that the Commonwealth’s model attainment demonstration shows current lead control and emission limits will provide for attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS and the modeling meets the requirements in the CAA and its implementing regulations. More detailed information on the modeling system tools and documents used for the model attainment demonstration for the Area and EPA’s analysis of PADEP’s modeling can be found on the EPA Technology Transfer Network Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling (SCRAM), in Pennsylvania’s August 12, 2015 submittal, and in the EPA’s Modeling TSD which can be found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA–R03– OAR–2015–0773) at www.regulations.gov.8 3. RACM, RACT, and RFP Analysis According to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.112, Demonstration of Adequacy, attainment plans shall provide for RACM and RACT and must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the national standard that it implements. In order to bring the North Reading Area into attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS, Pennsylvania developed and modeled a control strategy for emissions from stacks at stationary sources and fugitive emissions from stationary sources from the two point sources of lead in the nonattainment area. Section IV of Pennsylvania’s attainment plan SIP revision details the control measures and emission limits for the North Reading Area. Pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, attainment plans must provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable for each nonattainment area. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires RACM and emission reductions from sources through RACT to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. In March 2012, EPA issued guidance titled, ‘‘Guide to Developing Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions’’ (RACM Guidance).9 In the final rule for the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA recommended that at least all stationary sources emitting 0.5 tpy or 8 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/. 9 https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/pdfs/2012 ImplementationGuide.pdf. E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules more should undergo a RACT review.10 At the time Pennsylvania was developing its attainment plan SIP, Exide was the only stationary source within the North Reading Area that had the potential to emit 0.5 tpy or more of lead emissions. Therefore, Exide was the only point source within the North Reading Area which PADEP required to complete a RACT analysis. Exide performed a RACT analysis following EPA’s RACM guidance for controlling lead emissions which PADEP adopted in Plan Approval No. 06 05066I and proposes as RACT. Exide’s RACT analysis is located in appendix C–3 of Pennsylvania’s SIP revision. The control measures the PADEP implemented as RACT for Exide include a variety of control measures for the attainment plan which also address requirements in the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP. See 77 FR 556 (January 5, 2012). A descriptive list of the measures which Exide must implement are included in table 9 of PADEP’s SIP revision. EPA’s review and analysis of Pennsylvania’s RACT proposal for Exide can be found in the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA– R03–OAR–2015–0773) at www.regulations.gov. EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania’s determination that the controls for lead emissions at Exide constitute RACM/RACT because PADEP conducted a reasonable analysis of controls that are technically and economically feasible and set the lowest achievable limits given those controls in accordance with the CAA requirements. By approving these control measures as RACM/RACT for Exide for purposes of the North Reading attainment plan, these control measures will become permanent and federally enforceable and will meet the requirements of the CAA and the 2008 lead NAAQS. In addition to the RACT analysis performed for Exide, Pennsylvania evaluated other sources and actions that could contribute meaningful emission reductions for RACM. In order to establish further enforceable controls as RACM to reduce lead emissions from lead point sources and fugitive lead sources, the Commonwealth developed and entered into two separate COAs, one COA with Exide and one COA with Yuasa. These COAs are located within the Pennsylvania attainment SIP revision in appendices C–1 and C–2 and, upon EPA approval of Pennsylvania’s submittal, the portions 10 See 73 FR 67038 (November 12, 2008). VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:27 Jan 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 of these COAs submitted for the SIP will become federally enforceable. According to PADEP, the COA between Exide and Pennsylvania specifies control measures that have been demonstrated with air dispersion modeling to reduce Exide’s lead emission contributions to the North Reading Area. Also in the COA are emission limits that are to be included in the Commonwealth’s SIP as limiting factors for lead emissions control from the lead emitting stacks at the Exide facility. The COA limits the total stack lead emissions for Exide to 0.02479667 grams of lead per second (g/s). However, Exide has been in an idling state since February 2013, and as a result its lead emissions have been reduced dramatically. Exide submitted to PADEP a deactivation cover letter and Maintenance and Activation Plan on January 31, 2014, which indicated that only two lead-emitting sources remain active during the facility’s idling state. Source 131 Lime Storage Bin and Source 132 Plant Roadways continue to operate under the controls currently identified in the facility’s Title V operating permit. In 2014, under this idled state, Exide emitted a total of 0.00004 tpy of lead, reflecting significant reductions from its prior lead emissions due to idling. Included in the COA between Pennsylvania and Exide is the requirement that Exide shall not resume operation of any portion of the facility until Exide has completed all of the modification work specified in Exide’s Plan Approval No. 06–05066I, which includes all requirements for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP. According to PADEP’s attainment plan, the COA between Yuasa and Pennsylvania specifies control measures that have been demonstrated with air dispersion modeling to reduce Yuasa’s contribution to lead emissions in the North Reading Area. The COA with Yuasa includes emission limits as well as requirements for stack testing, recordkeeping, monitoring, and progress reports. The COA limits the total stack lead emissions for Yuasa to 0.002279522 g/s, to which Yuasa must adhere by December 31, 2015. Yuasa must demonstrate compliance with these limits, via reference method stack testing, by no later than June 30, 2016. Upon EPA final approval of the Pennsylvania lead attainment plan SIP revision for the North Reading Area, the limits and measures (in paragraph 3 for Exide and paragraphs 5 and 22 for Yuasa) within the COAs for Exide and Yuasa will become federally enforceable. EPA finds the measures contained in the COAs for Yuasa and PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 1139 Exide provide for implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable to provide for attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS in accordance with the requirements in section 172(c)(1) of the CAA and its implementing regulations. Further details of EPA’s review of the RACM for Yuasa and Exide is provided in the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA–R03–OAR– 2015–0773) at www.regulations.gov. In accordance with section 172(c)(2) of the CAA, attainment plans must also provide for RFP. Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutants as required by Title I, Part D of the CAA, or emission reductions that may reasonably be required by EPA to ensure attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.11 EPA believes that RFP for lead nonattainment areas should be met by ‘‘adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule’’ which is expected to periodically yield significant emission reductions, and as appropriate, linear progress.12 In its August 12, 2015 submittal, PADEP presented the COAs with Exide and Yuasa as providing for RFP. Overall, EPA finds that the control strategies for both Exide and Yuasa will provide for immediate reductions in lead emissions in the Area. Yuasa’s reductions will be implemented by December 2015. Although Exide’s reductions in lead from the control strategies in the COA have not been implemented yet, the plant has no lead smelting in operation and thus reductions in lead have already occurred. While the lead emissions reductions are not staggered or phased and therefore the ambient air quality concentrations are not expected to decrease over a long period of time, the lead reductions have already most notably occurred after Exide began its idling state in February 2013. Since shortly after Exide began idling, all of the North Reading Area’s ambient air monitors have been reporting 3-month rolling averages well below the 2008 lead NAAQS. As ambient air quality concentrations have dropped, and have remained, below 0.15 mg/m 3, EPA believes that the Area has made RFP towards attainment. As provided in the COA between Exide and PADEP, if Exide seeks to resume its lead smelting operations at its facility, Exide would first need to 11 Incremental reductions in lead emissions are not specified in Part D. 12 See 73 FR 67038 (November 12, 2008). E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1 1140 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS comply with all of the control measures necessary to comply with the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP as well as the control measures specified in the COA. Upon implementation of these control strategies, Pennsylvania’s modeling shows the ambient air quality concentrations should continue below the attainment level. Therefore, the Area should continue to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS whether Exide is operating or not and EPA thus finds that PADEP has met its RFP requirements for the North Reading Area. In summary, EPA finds the Pennsylvania attainment plan for North Reading Area meets CAA requirements in section 172 of the CAA for RACM/ RACT and RFP. Further EPA analysis and reasoning supporting EPA’s conclusion is available in the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0773) at www.regulations.gov. PADEP will use two types of triggers, ambient air quality and emission events, for the implementation of contingency measures in the North Reading Area. Detailed information regarding the contingency measure actions and contingency measure triggers for Exide and Yuasa as well as EPA’s analysis of these contingency measures for compliance with CAA requirements, can be found in the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD located in the docket for this proposed action (EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0773) at www.regulations.gov. EPA finds these contingency measure triggers and actions will help ensure compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS and meet the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA to ensure continued attainment of the NAAQS if any events occur interfering with attainment. EPA proposes to approve Pennsylvania’s SIP revision as meeting section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. 4. Contingency Measures As required by section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, an attainment demonstration must include contingency measures to be implemented if EPA determines that the nonattainment area in question has failed to make RFP or if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date in December 2015. These measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that can be implemented quickly and without additional EPA or state action if the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to meet it attainment date. Contingency measures should contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule. In addition, these measures should not already be included in the SIP control strategy for attaining the standard.13 For the North Reading Area attainment plan, Pennsylvania’s SIP submission provides that if the air quality data for any 3-month rolling period after the implementation of the control measures identified in the COAs and Plan Approval No. 06–05066I exceed the 0.15 mg/m3 lead NAAQS, at least one of the contingency measures set forth in the COAs shall be implemented. The COA between Pennsylvania and Exide includes for contingency measures: Upgrade of existing fugitive dust control devices; increase existing lead emission stack heights; increased frequency of plant roadway surface cleaning; and an investigative study.14 III. Proposed Action 13 See 73 FR 67038 (November 12, 2008). COA between Pennsylvania and Yuasa includes an investigative study as a contingency 14 The VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:27 Jan 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 EPA’s review of Pennsylvania’s August 12, 2015 SIP revision for the attainment plan for the North Reading Area satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA identified in EPA’s final 2008 lead NAAQS rule and in section 172 of the CAA and its implementation regulations.15 EPA finds the attainment plan will result in attainment of the 0.15 mg/m3 standard for the 2008 lead NAAQS in the North Reading Area. EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision, which was submitted on August 12, 2015, for the North Reading nonattainment area for the 2008 lead NAAQS and includes the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT and RFP analyses, and contingency measures. EPA also proposes to approve for inclusion in the Pennsylvania SIP paragraph 3 of the COA between Exide and PADEP, dated June 15, 2015 and paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA, dated June 12, 2012, between Yuasa and PADEP, as control measures for the attainment plan. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in measure for Yuasa. Appendix C–2 in PADEP’s August 12, 2015 submittal, which can be found in docket for this rulemaking action. 15 Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in a nonattainment area. The Pennsylvania SIP includes provisions consistent with the federal requirements, set forth at 40 CFR 51.165, for nonattainment new source review (NSR). Yuasa is considered a natural minor for purposes of nonattainment NSR for all pollutants, including lead. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 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 regarding PADEP’s lead attainment plan for the North Reading Area, 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 E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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, Lead. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 21, 2015. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 2015–33303 Filed 1–8–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0783; FRL–9940–79– Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting Requirements Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal that are now inconsistent with federal laws due to intervening decisions by the United States Courts and EPA rulemaking. This submittal establishes Minor New Source Review permitting requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and includes Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting provisions for sources that are classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a PSD permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions. The PSD permitting provisions also require a PSD permit for modifications of otherwise major sources because they increased only GHG above applicable levels. Additionally, we are proposing to disapprove severable portions of SIP submittals for the States of Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing the EPA’s July 20, 2011 rule deferring PSD requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources (‘‘Biomass Deferral’’). We are proposing to disapprove the provisions adopting the Biomass Deferral because the deferral has expired, so the provisions are no Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:27 Jan 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 longer consistent with federal laws. The EPA is proposing this disapproval under section 110 and part C of the Act. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 10, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– OAR–2015–0783, at https:// www.regulations.gov or via email to wiley.adina@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665– 2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 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 at either location (e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665–2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the EPA. I. Background A. The February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP Submittal On February 6, 2012, Oklahoma submitted revisions to the Oklahoma permitting programs for approval by the PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 1141 EPA into the Oklahoma SIP, including new Minor New Source Review (NSR) permitting requirements for GHG emissions at OAC 252:100–7–2.1 and revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program at OAC 252:100–8–31 (the definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’) to require PSD permits for sources solely because of GHG emissions. In addition, the submittal included many other updates to the Oklahoma SIP, unrelated to GHG permitting, which the EPA is addressing in separate actions. However, today’s action only addresses the provisions for GHG permitting that are inconsistent with federal laws. B. The November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP Submittal On November 6, 2012, Arkansas submitted revisions to the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission’s Regulations, Chapters 2, 4 and 9 for approval by the EPA into the Arkansas SIP. The EPA finalized our approval of the submitted revisions to the Arkansas PSD program at Regulation 19, Chapter 9 that provide the State of Arkansas with the authority to issue PSD permits governing GHG emissions on April 2, 2013, at 63 FR 19596. The EPA finalized approval of the other parts of the submittal on March 4, 2015, with the exception of the severable components of the submittal at Regulation 19, Chapter 4 specific to the Arkansas Minor NSR program, and the severable portion of the definition of ‘‘CO2 Equivalent Emissions’’ implementing the Biomass Deferral at Regulation 19, Chapter 2. Today’s action only addresses the severable portion of the definition of ‘‘CO2 Equivalent Emissions’’ at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 submitted on November 6, 2012. The EPA will address the revisions to the Arkansas Minor NSR program at Regulation 19, Chapter 4 in a separate action, at a later date. C. The January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP Submittal On January 8, 2013, New Mexico submitted regulations specific to the New Mexico PSD permitting program for approval by the EPA into the New Mexico SIP. The EPA finalized approval of a portion of this submittal pertaining to plantwide applicability limits for GHGs on December 11, 2013, at 78 FR 75253. The submittal also included revisions to the PSD permitting provisions that were adopted on January 7, 2013, at 20.2.74 NMAC to defer the application of the PSD requirements to CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources consistent with the Biomass Deferral. The revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC to adopt the Biomass E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1136-1141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33303]



[[Page 1136]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773; FRL-9941-07-Region 3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the North Reading Area for the 2008 
Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania). This 
revision pertains to the Commonwealth's attainment plan for the North 
Reading nonattainment area (``North Reading Area'' or ``Area'') for the 
2008 lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and includes 
a base year emissions inventory, an analysis of reasonably available 
control measures (RACM) (including reasonably available control 
technology (RACT)), a plan for reasonable further progress (RFP), a 
modeling demonstration of lead NAAQS attainment, and contingency 
measures. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 10, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0773 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773, Cristina Fernandez, Associate 
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0773. 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 information that you consider to 
be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email. 
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.
    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 in www.regulations.gov or may be viewed 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: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by 
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 12, 2015, the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to 
its SIP for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 lead 
NAAQS in the North Reading Area. Pennsylvania's lead attainment plan 
for the Area includes a base year emissions inventory, a modeling 
demonstration of lead NAAQS attainment, an analysis of RACM, RACT, and 
RFP, and contingency measures. The attainment plan includes portions of 
two Consent Order and Agreements (COA) between PADEP and Exide 
Technologies (Exide) and Yuasa Battery, Inc. (Yuasa) which demonstrate 
how Pennsylvania will achieve and maintain compliance with the 2008 
lead NAAQS. The lead attainment plan specifically includes paragraph 3 
of the COA between Exide and PADEP, dated June 15, 2015, and paragraphs 
5 and 22 of the COA between Yuasa and PADEP, dated June 12, 2015.
    EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the 2008 
lead NAAQS for the North Reading Area meets the applicable requirements 
of the CAA. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's attainment 
plan for the North Reading Area and paragraphs 3, 5, and 22, 
respectively, of the COAs between PADEP and Exide and Yuasa, as 
submitted on August 12, 2015.
    EPA's analysis and findings are discussed for each applicable 
requirement in this rulemaking action. The three Technical Support 
Documents (TSDs) for this proposed action contain additional details on 
the base year inventory, modeling, control strategies, RFP, and 
contingency measures of the attainment demonstration. Copies of these 
TSDs can be found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0773) at www.regulations.gov.

I. Background

    The North Reading attainment plan assesses lead emissions within 
the Area. Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and 
present in some manufactured products. Human exposure to lead can cause 
a variety of adverse health effects, especially in children.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A more detailed analysis of adverse health effects 
associated with lead exposure can be found in the Preamble of the 
2008 lead NAAQS final rule, published in the Federal Register on 
November 12, 2008. See 73 FR 66964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lead is emitted into the air from many sources, encompassing a wide 
variety of stationary and mobile source types. In the United States, 
there has been a decrease in the emissions of lead from mobile sources, 
resulting from the reduction of lead additives to fuel. Most of the 
lead emissions in the North Reading Area come from permitted stationary 
sources within the Area.
    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established a 2008 primary 
and secondary lead NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/
m\3\)

[[Page 1137]]

based on a maximum arithmetic 3-month mean concentration for a 3-year 
period. See 40 CFR 50.16. Following promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA, as described in section 107(d)(1), 
to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not 
attaining the NAAQS. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA published 
its initial air quality designations and classifications for the 2008 
lead NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar years 
2007-2009. The November 22, 2010 notice included the nonattainment 
designation of the North Reading Area; an area within Berks County in 
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded by Alsace Township, 
Laureldale Borough, and Muhlenberg Township. See 76 FR 72097. The 
November 22, 2010 designations, including the North Reading Area 
nonattainment designation, became effective on December 31, 2010.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA completed a second and final round of designations for 
the 2008 lead NAAQS on November 22, 2011. See 76 FR 72097. No 
additional areas in Pennsylvania were designated as nonattainment 
for the 2008 lead NAAQS in the November 22, 2011 designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The designation of the North Reading Area as nonattainment for the 
2008 lead NAAQS triggered requirements under section 191(a) of the CAA, 
requiring Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the 
Area will attain the 2008 lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable, 
but no later than December 31, 2015.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On August 12, 2015, in accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, 
Pennsylvania submitted an attainment plan for the North Reading Area 
which includes a base year emissions inventory, an attainment 
demonstration, an analysis of RACM and RACT, provisions for RFP, and 
contingency measures. The SIP revision also includes paragraph 3 of the 
COA between Exide and PADEP and paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA between 
Yuasa and PADEP. EPA's analysis of the submitted attainment plan 
includes a review of these elements for the North Reading Area.
    As part of the promulgation of the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA revised the 
air monitoring requirements for lead. In accordance with the revised 
monitoring requirements, air monitors near sources in Pennsylvania that 
emit one ton per year (tpy) or more were in place by January 2010. The 
monitoring requirements for lead were further revised on December 27, 
2010, when EPA lowered the monitoring requirement for stationary 
sources down to those that emit 0.5 tpy of lead among other changes. 
See 75 FR 81126.
    Pennsylvania's lead monitoring network consists of lead monitors 
that have been designated by EPA as either Reference or Equivalent 
monitors and are subject to the federal quality assurance requirements 
of 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. All samplers are located at sites that 
have met the minimum siting requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendices 
D and E.
    PADEP currently operates two ambient air monitors in the North 
Reading Area. The Laureldale South monitor has been in place since 1976 
and the Laureldale North monitor since January 1, 2010.\3\ As required 
in 40 CFR 58.10, Pennsylvania must provide EPA with an annual network 
design plan in order to inform both EPA and the public of any planned 
changes to the sampling network for the next year. EPA approved 
Pennsylvania's 2015 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Design Plan, 
the most recent year available at the time of this evaluation, on 
November 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Laureldale North monitor (AQS 42-011-0020) is associated 
with the Exide facility located in Berks County and was installed in 
accordance with EPA's network design requirements for the 2008 lead 
NAAQS. 73 FR 66964. EPA reaffirmed placement of lead ambient air 
monitors in Pennsylvania when approving Pennsylvania's lead 
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 NAAQS as meeting requirements in 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. See 79 FR 19009 (April 7, 
2014). EPA's approval of the lead infrastructure SIP, particularly 
regarding the approval of Pennsylvania's monitoring locations for 
section 110(a)(2)(B), was upheld in 2015 by the United States Court 
of Appeal for the Third Circuit. Berks County v. EPA, 3rd Cir. No. 
14-2913, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14050 (August 11, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Emissions Inventory Requirements

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a state to submit a SIP that 
includes a ``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual 
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant'' in the 
nonattainment area. In the 2008 lead NAAQS rulemaking on November 12, 
2008, EPA finalized guidance related to the emissions inventories 
requirements for lead. See 73 FR 66964.
    For the base year inventory of actual lead emissions for CAA 
172(c)(3), EPA recommends using either 2010 or 2011 as the base year, 
but does provide flexibility for using other inventory years if states 
can show another year is more appropriate. Additionally, EPA guidance 
provides that actual emissions should be used for purposes of the base 
year inventory.\4\ PADEP submitted a 2010 inventory for the point 
sources of lead emissions in the North Reading Area, which includes 
Exide and Yuasa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ``Addendum to the 2008 Lead NAAQS Implementation 
Questions and Answers'' dated August 10, 2012, which is included in 
EPA's SIP Toolkit located at www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/implement.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the nonpoint sources of lead emissions, PADEP submitted EPA's 
2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) v2 data as a surrogate for the 
2010 inventory. The nonpoint source values for the North Reading Area 
were calculated using Berks County data apportioned by population.
    EPA reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for 
Pennsylvania's submission and found them to be reasonable for 
calculating the lead base year inventory for section 172(c)(3) of the 
CAA and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.117(e). A more detailed 
description of the PADEP's use and calculation of inventories as well 
as EPA's analysis of PADEP's base inventory for CAA requirements is 
included in the TSD prepared in support of this proposed rulemaking 
action. A copy of the Base Inventory TSD can be found in the docket for 
this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at www.regulations.gov. In 
this action, EPA is proposing to approve the base year emissions 
inventory submitted by Pennsylvania on August 12, 2015, as it meets 
requirements in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

2. Attainment Planning Modeling

    Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA and the lead SIP regulations found at 
40 CFR 51.117 require states to employ atmospheric dispersion modeling 
for the demonstration of attainment of the lead NAAQS for areas in the 
vicinity of point sources listed in 40 CFR 51.117(a)(1), as 
expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and part 51, appendix W, and include 
inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on 
which the state has based its projected attainment. All these 
requirements comprise the ``attainment plan'' that is required for lead 
nonattainment areas.
    As part of a state's attainment plan, 40 CFR 51.117(a) provides 
that states must include an analysis showing that the SIP will attain 
and maintain the standard in areas in the vicinity of certain point 
sources that are emitting significant emissions of lead and also in 
``[a]ny other area that has lead air concentrations in excess of the 
national ambient air quality standard concentration.'' These sources 
include primary and secondary lead smelters, primary copper smelters, 
lead gasoline additive plants, lead-acid storage battery

[[Page 1138]]

manufacturing plants, and any other stationary source that emits 25 or 
more tpy of lead or lead compounds measured as elemental lead. 40 CFR 
51.117(a)(1). In doing this analysis, EPA expects a state will take 
into consideration all sources of lead emissions within the 
nonattainment area that may be required to be controlled.
    In its SIP submittal, Pennsylvania identified one facility as 
having the potential to emit 0.5 tpy or more of lead in the North 
Reading Area. This facility, Exide Technologies, a secondary lead 
smelter, was included in PADEP's modeling analysis. Yuasa, a lead-acid 
battery assembly plant located across the street from Exide, was also 
included in the modeling analysis. Lead emissions from nonpoint sources 
and mobile sources were also examined but found to be insignificant and 
while included in PADEP's lead inventory, they were not included in the 
lead modeling demonstration due to their insignificance.
    In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, PADEP completed an 
air-dispersion modeling analysis for base year and future year emission 
inventories representing Exide and Yuasa, with reported lead emissions 
in 2010 and projected emissions for 2015. The 2015 lead emissions were 
used in the modeled attainment demonstration to determine if projected 
lead emission rates would comply with the 2008 lead NAAQS. The 2015 
lead emissions for Exide and Yuasa were determined by incorporating 
emission reductions from the implementation of the control measures set 
forth in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Secondary Lead Smelting sources (Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP) 
and from the stack-specific emission limits identified in the COAs 
between Pennsylvania and Exide and Yuasa.\5\ PADEP modeled seventy-
seven lead emission sources for Exide and twenty-seven lead emission 
sources for Yuasa. Table 1 summarizes 2010 and 2015 lead emissions 
compiled by the Commonwealth for both Exide and Yuasa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ PADEP's RACM/RACT proposal for Exide, which includes 
measures that would require the facility to meet the requirements of 
the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, is contained within Exide's Plan 
Approval No. 06-05066I.

       Table 1--North Reading Lead Source Emissions Summary (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 2010 lead    2015 lead
                  Lead source                    emissions    emissions
                                                  (actual)   (projected)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exide.........................................       1.0417       0.8991
Yuasa.........................................       0.1520       0.0850
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has found that PADEP's modeling demonstration was done in 
accordance with appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 and the modeling indicates 
that the Area will meet the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    Because the Area had monitored violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS in 
January 2013, before Exide began idling, the Area will not attain the 
NAAQS by December 2015 (the Area's attainment date pursuant to section 
192 of the CAA) based on ambient air quality over 36 consecutive 3-
month periods. However, there have been no monthly periods which have 
exceeded 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ since March 2013.6 7 As such, 
the 3-month rolling averages from mid-year 2013 and after have been 
below 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ and the Area is on track to meet the 2008 lead 
NAAQS. EPA and PADEP expect the 2008 lead NAAQS to be attained on the 
basis of 2014-2016 ambient data as a result of implementation of 
PADEP's August 12, 2015 SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The daily averages used to calculate 3-month averages are 
given in appendices A-2 and A-3 in PADEP's August 12, 2015 
submittal, which can be found in docket for this rulemaking action.
    \7\ Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality System Data 
Mart [internet database] available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/aqsdatamart. Accessed December 3, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The projected 2015 emissions inventory used the maximum allowable 
lead emissions for both Exide and Yuasa. While Exide is currently 
idling, it has not installed all of the control measures necessary for 
the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP and its Plan Approval No. 06-05066I. 
However, pursuant to the COA between Exide and Pennsylvania, Exide 
cannot resume operations at the facility without demonstrating 
compliance with the control measures specified in the Plan Approval No. 
06-05066I and in its COA. The future year maximum allowable lead 
emissions were developed from the control measures included in 
Pennsylvania's attainment plan. However, even if Exide's operations 
remain idled and controls not installed until it resumes operations, 
its potential lead emissions while idling will continue to be less than 
if it were operating under the NESHAP and COA controls and limits.
    EPA has evaluated the information provided in the Commonwealth's 
attainment plan for the North Reading Area and concludes that the 
Commonwealth's model attainment demonstration shows current lead 
control and emission limits will provide for attainment of the 2008 
lead NAAQS and the modeling meets the requirements in the CAA and its 
implementing regulations.
    More detailed information on the modeling system tools and 
documents used for the model attainment demonstration for the Area and 
EPA's analysis of PADEP's modeling can be found on the EPA Technology 
Transfer Network Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling 
(SCRAM), in Pennsylvania's August 12, 2015 submittal, and in the EPA's 
Modeling TSD which can be found in the docket for this proposed action 
(EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at www.regulations.gov.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. RACM, RACT, and RFP Analysis

    According to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.112, 
Demonstration of Adequacy, attainment plans shall provide for RACM and 
RACT and must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations 
contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and 
maintenance of the national standard that it implements.
    In order to bring the North Reading Area into attainment for the 
2008 lead NAAQS, Pennsylvania developed and modeled a control strategy 
for emissions from stacks at stationary sources and fugitive emissions 
from stationary sources from the two point sources of lead in the 
nonattainment area. Section IV of Pennsylvania's attainment plan SIP 
revision details the control measures and emission limits for the North 
Reading Area.
    Pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, attainment plans must 
provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as 
practicable for each nonattainment area. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA 
requires RACM and emission reductions from sources through RACT to 
provide for attainment of the NAAQS. In March 2012, EPA issued guidance 
titled, ``Guide to Developing Reasonably Available Control Measures 
(RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions'' (RACM Guidance).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/pdfs/2012ImplementationGuide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rule for the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA recommended that at 
least all stationary sources emitting 0.5 tpy or

[[Page 1139]]

more should undergo a RACT review.\10\ At the time Pennsylvania was 
developing its attainment plan SIP, Exide was the only stationary 
source within the North Reading Area that had the potential to emit 0.5 
tpy or more of lead emissions. Therefore, Exide was the only point 
source within the North Reading Area which PADEP required to complete a 
RACT analysis. Exide performed a RACT analysis following EPA's RACM 
guidance for controlling lead emissions which PADEP adopted in Plan 
Approval No. 06 05066I and proposes as RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 73 FR 67038 (November 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exide's RACT analysis is located in appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's 
SIP revision. The control measures the PADEP implemented as RACT for 
Exide include a variety of control measures for the attainment plan 
which also address requirements in the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP. 
See 77 FR 556 (January 5, 2012).
    A descriptive list of the measures which Exide must implement are 
included in table 9 of PADEP's SIP revision. EPA's review and analysis 
of Pennsylvania's RACT proposal for Exide can be found in the Control 
Strategies, Reasonable Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD 
found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at 
www.regulations.gov.
    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's determination that the 
controls for lead emissions at Exide constitute RACM/RACT because PADEP 
conducted a reasonable analysis of controls that are technically and 
economically feasible and set the lowest achievable limits given those 
controls in accordance with the CAA requirements. By approving these 
control measures as RACM/RACT for Exide for purposes of the North 
Reading attainment plan, these control measures will become permanent 
and federally enforceable and will meet the requirements of the CAA and 
the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    In addition to the RACT analysis performed for Exide, Pennsylvania 
evaluated other sources and actions that could contribute meaningful 
emission reductions for RACM. In order to establish further enforceable 
controls as RACM to reduce lead emissions from lead point sources and 
fugitive lead sources, the Commonwealth developed and entered into two 
separate COAs, one COA with Exide and one COA with Yuasa. These COAs 
are located within the Pennsylvania attainment SIP revision in 
appendices C-1 and C-2 and, upon EPA approval of Pennsylvania's 
submittal, the portions of these COAs submitted for the SIP will become 
federally enforceable.
    According to PADEP, the COA between Exide and Pennsylvania 
specifies control measures that have been demonstrated with air 
dispersion modeling to reduce Exide's lead emission contributions to 
the North Reading Area. Also in the COA are emission limits that are to 
be included in the Commonwealth's SIP as limiting factors for lead 
emissions control from the lead emitting stacks at the Exide facility. 
The COA limits the total stack lead emissions for Exide to 0.02479667 
grams of lead per second (g/s).
    However, Exide has been in an idling state since February 2013, and 
as a result its lead emissions have been reduced dramatically. Exide 
submitted to PADEP a deactivation cover letter and Maintenance and 
Activation Plan on January 31, 2014, which indicated that only two 
lead-emitting sources remain active during the facility's idling state. 
Source 131 Lime Storage Bin and Source 132 Plant Roadways continue to 
operate under the controls currently identified in the facility's Title 
V operating permit. In 2014, under this idled state, Exide emitted a 
total of 0.00004 tpy of lead, reflecting significant reductions from 
its prior lead emissions due to idling.
    Included in the COA between Pennsylvania and Exide is the 
requirement that Exide shall not resume operation of any portion of the 
facility until Exide has completed all of the modification work 
specified in Exide's Plan Approval No. 06-05066I, which includes all 
requirements for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP.
    According to PADEP's attainment plan, the COA between Yuasa and 
Pennsylvania specifies control measures that have been demonstrated 
with air dispersion modeling to reduce Yuasa's contribution to lead 
emissions in the North Reading Area. The COA with Yuasa includes 
emission limits as well as requirements for stack testing, 
recordkeeping, monitoring, and progress reports. The COA limits the 
total stack lead emissions for Yuasa to 0.002279522 g/s, to which Yuasa 
must adhere by December 31, 2015. Yuasa must demonstrate compliance 
with these limits, via reference method stack testing, by no later than 
June 30, 2016.
    Upon EPA final approval of the Pennsylvania lead attainment plan 
SIP revision for the North Reading Area, the limits and measures (in 
paragraph 3 for Exide and paragraphs 5 and 22 for Yuasa) within the 
COAs for Exide and Yuasa will become federally enforceable. EPA finds 
the measures contained in the COAs for Yuasa and Exide provide for 
implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable to provide 
for attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS in accordance with the 
requirements in section 172(c)(1) of the CAA and its implementing 
regulations. Further details of EPA's review of the RACM for Yuasa and 
Exide is provided in the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further 
Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD found in the docket for this 
proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at www.regulations.gov.
    In accordance with section 172(c)(2) of the CAA, attainment plans 
must also provide for RFP. Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as 
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air 
pollutants as required by Title I, Part D of the CAA, or emission 
reductions that may reasonably be required by EPA to ensure attainment 
of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.\11\ EPA believes that 
RFP for lead nonattainment areas should be met by ``adherence to an 
ambitious compliance schedule'' which is expected to periodically yield 
significant emission reductions, and as appropriate, linear 
progress.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Incremental reductions in lead emissions are not specified 
in Part D.
    \12\ See 73 FR 67038 (November 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its August 12, 2015 submittal, PADEP presented the COAs with 
Exide and Yuasa as providing for RFP. Overall, EPA finds that the 
control strategies for both Exide and Yuasa will provide for immediate 
reductions in lead emissions in the Area. Yuasa's reductions will be 
implemented by December 2015. Although Exide's reductions in lead from 
the control strategies in the COA have not been implemented yet, the 
plant has no lead smelting in operation and thus reductions in lead 
have already occurred. While the lead emissions reductions are not 
staggered or phased and therefore the ambient air quality 
concentrations are not expected to decrease over a long period of time, 
the lead reductions have already most notably occurred after Exide 
began its idling state in February 2013. Since shortly after Exide 
began idling, all of the North Reading Area's ambient air monitors have 
been reporting 3-month rolling averages well below the 2008 lead NAAQS. 
As ambient air quality concentrations have dropped, and have remained, 
below 0.15 [micro]g/m \3\, EPA believes that the Area has made RFP 
towards attainment.
    As provided in the COA between Exide and PADEP, if Exide seeks to 
resume its lead smelting operations at its facility, Exide would first 
need to

[[Page 1140]]

comply with all of the control measures necessary to comply with the 
Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP as well as the control measures 
specified in the COA. Upon implementation of these control strategies, 
Pennsylvania's modeling shows the ambient air quality concentrations 
should continue below the attainment level. Therefore, the Area should 
continue to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS whether Exide is operating or 
not and EPA thus finds that PADEP has met its RFP requirements for the 
North Reading Area.
    In summary, EPA finds the Pennsylvania attainment plan for North 
Reading Area meets CAA requirements in section 172 of the CAA for RACM/
RACT and RFP. Further EPA analysis and reasoning supporting EPA's 
conclusion is available in the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further 
Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD found in the docket for this 
proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at www.regulations.gov.

4. Contingency Measures

    As required by section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, an attainment 
demonstration must include contingency measures to be implemented if 
EPA determines that the nonattainment area in question has failed to 
make RFP or if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment 
date in December 2015. These measures must be fully adopted rules or 
control measures that can be implemented quickly and without additional 
EPA or state action if the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails 
to meet it attainment date. Contingency measures should contain trigger 
mechanisms and an implementation schedule. In addition, these measures 
should not already be included in the SIP control strategy for 
attaining the standard.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 73 FR 67038 (November 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the North Reading Area attainment plan, Pennsylvania's SIP 
submission provides that if the air quality data for any 3-month 
rolling period after the implementation of the control measures 
identified in the COAs and Plan Approval No. 06-05066I exceed the 0.15 
[micro]g/m\3\ lead NAAQS, at least one of the contingency measures set 
forth in the COAs shall be implemented.
    The COA between Pennsylvania and Exide includes for contingency 
measures: Upgrade of existing fugitive dust control devices; increase 
existing lead emission stack heights; increased frequency of plant 
roadway surface cleaning; and an investigative study.\14\ PADEP will 
use two types of triggers, ambient air quality and emission events, for 
the implementation of contingency measures in the North Reading Area. 
Detailed information regarding the contingency measure actions and 
contingency measure triggers for Exide and Yuasa as well as EPA's 
analysis of these contingency measures for compliance with CAA 
requirements, can be found in the Control Strategies, Reasonable 
Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD located in the docket 
for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at 
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The COA between Pennsylvania and Yuasa includes an 
investigative study as a contingency measure for Yuasa. Appendix C-2 
in PADEP's August 12, 2015 submittal, which can be found in docket 
for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finds these contingency measure triggers and actions will help 
ensure compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS and meet the requirements of 
section 172(c)(9) of the CAA to ensure continued attainment of the 
NAAQS if any events occur interfering with attainment. EPA proposes to 
approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision as meeting section 172(c)(9) of the 
CAA.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of Pennsylvania's August 12, 2015 SIP revision for the 
attainment plan for the North Reading Area satisfies the applicable 
requirements of the CAA identified in EPA's final 2008 lead NAAQS rule 
and in section 172 of the CAA and its implementation regulations.\15\ 
EPA finds the attainment plan will result in attainment of the 0.15 
[micro]g/m\3\ standard for the 2008 lead NAAQS in the North Reading 
Area. EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision, which 
was submitted on August 12, 2015, for the North Reading nonattainment 
area for the 2008 lead NAAQS and includes the attainment demonstration, 
base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT and RFP analyses, and 
contingency measures. EPA also proposes to approve for inclusion in the 
Pennsylvania SIP paragraph 3 of the COA between Exide and PADEP, dated 
June 15, 2015 and paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA, dated June 12, 2012, 
between Yuasa and PADEP, as control measures for the attainment plan. 
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires permits for the 
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary 
sources anywhere in a nonattainment area. The Pennsylvania SIP 
includes provisions consistent with the federal requirements, set 
forth at 40 CFR 51.165, for nonattainment new source review (NSR). 
Yuasa is considered a natural minor for purposes of nonattainment 
NSR for all pollutants, including lead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 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 regarding PADEP's lead attainment 
plan for the North Reading Area, 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

[[Page 1141]]

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, Lead.

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

    Dated: December 21, 2015.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-33303 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.