Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; 2015 Kansas State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard, 10162-10168 [2016-04080]

Download as PDF 10162 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules revising the attainment demonstration modeling to address this change in TBRCI’s operating status. Therefore, while we are proposing disapproval, the EPA fully expects Puerto Rico to submit a new Attainment Demonstration SIP to reflect this change in TBRCI’s operating status in the Arecibo Area. If the Attainment Demonstration SIP is submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision, the EPA will review it and, if it is approvable, will withdraw the proposed disapproval. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews a. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. b. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). c. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action merely disapproves Puerto Rico’s Lead SIP as not meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by the plan. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that which is required by Puerto Rico law because this rule disapproves a SIP revision and it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the Commonwealth, on the relationship between the national government and the Commonwealth, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely disapproves the Puerto Rico Lead SIP and does not alter the relationship or VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Feb 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. f. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000); g. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it disapproves the Puerto Rico Lead SIP. h. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy action,’’ this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). i. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state or commonwealth choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the Commonwealth to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), the EPA has no authority to disapprove a commonwealth submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. List of Subjects in 40 Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Dated: February 22, 2016. Judith Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. 2016–04438 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0708; FRL–9942–78– Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; 2015 Kansas State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to grant full approval of Kansas’s attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area of Salina, Saline County, Kansas, received by EPA on February 25, 2015. The applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act identified in EPA’s Final Rule published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2008, and will bring the designated portions of Salina, Kansas, into attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (mg/m3) lead NAAQS. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– OAR–2015–0708, to http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\29FEP1.SGM 29FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or at the EPA, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Doolan, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551–7719, or by email at doolan.stephanie@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Table of Contents asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Background V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS A. Facility Description B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data C. Control Strategy D. Modeling Results E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) F. Attainment Demonstration G. New Source Review (NSR) H. Contingency Measures I. Enforceability VI. Proposed Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is being addressed in this document? In this document, EPA is addressing Kansas’ attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area in portions of Salina, Saline County, Kansas. The applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA identified in VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Feb 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 EPA’s Final Rule (73 FR 66964, October 15, 2008), and will bring the area into attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (mg/m3) lead NAAQS. II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met? The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including section 110 and implementing regulations. III. What action is EPA taking? EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Kansas’ attainment demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is proposing this action in order to solicit comments. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments received. IV. Background EPA established the NAAQS for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR 46246). On October 15, 2008, EPA established a new lead NAAQS of 0.15 mg/m3 in air, measured as a rolling three-month average. (73 FR 66964). On November 22, 2011, portions of Salina, Saline County, Kansas, were designated as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. (76 FR 72097). Under sections 191(a) and 192(a)of the CAA, Kansas is required to submit to EPA an attainment demonstration SIP revision for lead and to demonstrate the nonattainment area will reach attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS no later than five years from the date of the nonattainment area designation. V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS A. Facility Description There are two lead-emitting sources contributing to the Salina lead nonattainment area: Exide Technologies (Exide) and Metlcast Products (Metlcast). A description of the operation of these two facilities is presented below. 1. Exide Process Description The Exide facility in Salina, Kansas, manufactures lead acid batteries for automobiles, trucks, and watercraft. Lead emissions result from breaking open used batteries, re-melting the lead, and reformulating new batteries. The lead is released in particulate form and generally captured within building PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 10163 structures or by air pollution control equipment; however, some lead particulates escape to the ambient air, despite facility process enclosures and the efficiency of air pollution control equipment. The facility reports lead emissions greater than 0.5 tons per year (tpy). The production operations at the facility consist of seven pasting lines, five ball mills and ten oxide mills with emissions controlled by 15 process baghouses, 16 battery assembly lines, and 41 lead reclaim pots with emissions controlled for 29 of those pots by five baghouses. Lead alloy ingots are charged to a melting pot, from which the molten lead flows into molds that form the battery grids. Paste is made in a batch process. A mixture of lead oxide powder, water, and sulfuric acid produces a positive paste, and the same ingredients in a slightly difference proportion with the addition of an expander make the negative paste. Pasting machines then force pastes into the interstices of the grids, which are then made into plates. The pasted plates are then cured through alternating cycles of steaming and drying. From the ovens, the cured plates are loaded into the assembly process where they are automatically stacked in an alternating positive/negative order. Emissions from the battery manufacturing process are controlled by baghouses. 2. Metlcast Process Description The Metlcast facility is located to the north of the Exide facility, near the violating lead monitor. The Metlcast facility uses three electric induction furnaces to cast gray iron. The scrap metal used to produce the gray iron most likely has varying amounts of lead, depending on the source of the scrap. When heated, the lead is driven off the molten metal in the form of particulates. Elemental lead and lead compounds in the form of particulates are captured by the facility’s air pollution control equipment; however, some leadcontaminated particulates escape to the ambient air. B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data Exide conducted air dispersion modeling to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy. Kansas reviewed the results of the air model which demonstrates attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS and the results form the basis of the attainment SIP. EPA conducted an independent review of the modeling. The results of the modeling will be discussed in more detail in section V.C. of this document. E:\FR\FM\29FEP1.SGM 29FEP1 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 10164 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules The model, AERMOD, was utilized and is EPA’s preferred model for demonstrating attainment of the lead NAAQS. AERMOD estimates the combined ambient impact of sources by simulating Gaussian dispersion of emissions plumes. Emission rates, wind speed and direction, atmospheric mixing heights, terrain, plume rise from stack emissions, initial dispersion characteristics of fugitive sources, particle size and density are all factors considered by the model when estimating ambient impacts. Exide conducted the dispersion modeling in accordance with ‘‘Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Protocol for SIP Attainment Demonstration,’’ dated March 2013. Results of the modeling are reported in appendix A of the Kansas attainment SIP, available in the docket associated with this proposed action. Exide used the surface and upper air meteorological data from the Salina airport (SLN) for years 2007 through 2011. EPA recommends the use of five years of meteorological data for the model (40 CFR part 51, appendix W, section 8.3.1.2). EPA conducted a review of the meteorological data used for the modeling and agreed with Kansas’s determination that it is representative of meteorological conditions in the nonattainment area. The meteorological data were run through AERMOD’s pre-processors to make the data usable by the model. As required by section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, an emission inventory was developed for this nonattainment area. At Exide, ten baghouses were each modeled as separate point sources and ten oxide mills stacks were modeled as discharging from one 65-foot stack. Potential emissions rates for the point sources were determined from stack test data, using an average of three runs from the highest measured average emissions rates since 2007, or the most recent infrastructure update for the source. Appendix A of the attainment SIP contains a detailed listing of the emissions modeled for each point source. A factor of 3.3 to 12 times each point source emission rate was applied to demonstrate the levels necessary to achieve attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Fugitive sources of lead at the Exide facility include process fugitives and vehicular fugitives from truck haul routes. The fugitive emissions were modeled as volume sources. Building process fugitives were estimated with a 99 percent capture efficiency on the basis of total building enclosures with negative pressure and local exhaust ventilation (LEV). Haul route fugitives were estimated using the Paved Roads VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Feb 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 section of Chapter 13.2.1 of EPA’s AP– 42 guidelines.1 Metlcast’s emissions were modeled as volume sources because its operations occur in an open building with wall and roof vents, so there are no stacks from which to conduct emissions testing. Emissions estimates were based on the volatilized fraction of the lead fraction of the facility’s 2011 production, which was estimated to be 6910 tons. The quantity of lead emissions was estimated over a 12-hour per day operating shift over 365 days per year. In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, background concentrations must be considered when determining NAAQS compliance. Background concentrations are intended to include impacts attributable to natural sources, nearby sources (excluding the dominant source(s)), and unidentified sources. The calculated background concentration includes all sources of lead not already included in the model run script. The background concentration includes distant sources of lead or naturally occurring lead in soils that has become re-entrained in the atmosphere. A background value is typically calculated by averaging the monitored concentrations of lead in air from an ambient air monitor within the nonattainment area. In this case, however, the ambient air monitor is located between the two facilities so that it is not possible to calculate a background value for lead from the monitoring data that does not include the influence of one of the facilities, regardless of wind direction. Instead, Kansas used a background level of 0.01 mg/m3 which is the national non-source oriented monthly average ambient lead concentration determined by EPA in its final ‘‘Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (ISA),’’ dated June 2013 (http:// www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/lead.htm). Tables 2–13 and 2–15 of the ISA provide detailed statistics based upon the national monitoring network to support a background lead level of 0.01 mg/m3. The use of this nationally determined background level is further supported by data from the temporary non-source oriented lead monitor located north of the nonattainment area in Salina, Kansas, which recorded an average lead concentration of 0.005 mg/ m3. Also, a lead monitor formerly located in Wichita, Kansas, reported average concentrations of 0.0076 mg/m3. In the absence of the ability to establish a background lead level 1 AP–42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ ap42/. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 derived from a monitor within the nonattainment area, EPA agrees that the use of this non-source oriented average monthly ambient lead value from the ISA represents a conservative estimate of background for use in the Salina attainment modeling. C. Control Strategy The following describes the control strategy detailed in the Kansas attainment SIP to achieve the 2008 lead NAAQS. The Kansas control strategy focuses on control measures to be implemented at Exide because it is the greater source of lead emissions of the two facilities in the nonattainment area. In April 2006, Exide began a five-year project to replace all ten of its oxide mills. The project included replacement of associated baghouses and the addition of HEPA filters for each oxide mill source. The project was completed in March 2011. On October 1, 2013, the oxide mill baghouse emissions were routed to a new 65-foot stack. From September 2009 to February 2014, Exide also replaced its five general purpose baghouses (BH1 through BH5). Baghouse 1 (BH1) was replaced and its stack height was increased to 80 feet in a project completed on February 19, 2014. On July 19, 2013, Exide completed increasing the stack heights of the ball mill baghouses (BH11 through BH15) by 37 feet as necessary by the attainment modeling. To address process fugitives, Exide installed LEVs over processing operations located in negative pressure total enclosures to increase the effectiveness of lead particulate capture. This 99 percent reduction in emissions from the ball mill process is required by the Federally-enforceable construction permit issued by Kansas to Exide, effective date August 18, 2014. The permit is appendix C of the attainment SIP. The construction permit contains total enclosure standards including the requirement to maintain a negative pressure of at least 0.013 mm of mercury which is consistent with the secondary lead smelter NESHAP (77 FR 556, January 5, 2012). Although the Exide facility is not a secondary lead smelter, the concepts for controlling lead emissions are similar, and are therefore relevant. The Federally-enforceable construction permit also required Exide to complete paving all roadways by July 31, 2014. The additional paving of an area of approximately 15,200 square yards in the northwest section of the facility demonstrates a reduction of 0.04 tons of lead per year which represents E:\FR\FM\29FEP1.SGM 29FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS a 29 percent reduction in lead emissions. D. Modeling Results Exide’s modeling report can be found in appendix A of the Kansas attainment SIP. The modeling was conducted to determine the impacts of the additive lead emissions of both the Exide and Metlcast facilities, and the assumed area background of 0.01 mg/m3 lead, on offsite receptors including the air monitor and two nearby elementary schools. The results of the modeling demonstrate that with the control strategy described above in paragraph V.C. above, the facilities will attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS. At the point of maximum impact, which is approximately 50 feet to the northeast of the ambient air monitor, the model predicts a lead concentration of 0.137 mg/m3. This is below the 2008 Lead NAAQS of 0.15 mg/m3. At the ambient air monitor, the model predicts a lead concentration of 0.137 mg/m3. By comparison, the ambient air monitoring data demonstrate that the facility has measured lead concentrations below the 0.15 mg/m3 lead standard since the rolling calendar quarter ending September of 2013. The average rolling quarterly lead level in ambient air from the quarter ending September 2013 to the quarter ending May 2015 is 0.096 mg/m3, which is less than the model-predicted lead level. Exide also modeled the lead concentrations at two nearby elementary schools to ensure that there would be no unacceptable lead impacts. At Schilling Elementary School, the ambient lead levels in air are predicted to be 0.018 mg/m3, and the predicted lead levels for Coronado Elementary School are predicted to be 0.028 mg/m3. The predicted levels of lead in ambient air are less than 15 percent of the standard; therefore, there is no concern for exceeding the standard at either of these locations under the Federallyenforceable control strategy described in paragraph V.C. above. EPA reviewed and independently verified the modeling conducted by Exide. Based on EPA’s analysis of the attainment modeling and its outcomes, EPA believes that the Kansas control strategy will bring the designated portions of Saline County, Kansas, into attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires nonattainment areas to implement all RACM, including emissions reductions VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Feb 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 through the adoption of Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable. EPA interprets this as requiring all nonattainment areas to consider all available controls and to implement all measures that are determined to be reasonably available, except that measures which will not assist the area to more expeditiously attain the standard are not required to be implemented.2 In March 2012, EPA issued guidance titled, ‘‘Implementation of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions’’ (RACM Guidance).3 Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires areas designated as nonattainment for criteria pollutants to include a demonstration of Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) in attainment demonstrations. Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutants as required by part D, or emission reductions that may reasonably be required by EPA to ensure attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. Part D does not include specific RFP requirements for lead. EPA recommends a RACT analysis for facilities emitting 0.5 tpy lead per year or more. (73 FR 66964). In 2011, Exide reported lead emissions of 1.45 tons per year.4 Metlcast’s annual emissions were conservatively estimated based on its production to be approximately 0.004 tons of lead per year. Thus, only Exide exceeds the threshold for determining RACT to comply with the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Page 12 of the lead attainment SIP discusses the Kansas RACT/RACM analysis. Kansas determined that the ongoing emission control projects detailed in appendix B of the attainment SIP document and listed above in paragraph V.C. meet the requirements of EPA’s RACM Guidance. As stated in the final lead NAAQS rule, RFP is satisfied by the strict adherence to a compliance schedule which is expected to periodically yield significant emission reductions. The control measures described in paragraph V.C. above have been modeled and demonstrated to achieve the lead NAAQS and also comply with RACM and RFP. RFP is addressed by the control strategy occurring in a timeframe consistent with the CAA. Upon implementation of the control strategy 2 See 58 FR 67751, December 22, 1993, for a discussion of this interpretation as it relates to lead. 3 http://www.epa.gov/oar/lead/pdfs/ 2012ImplementationGuide.pdf. 4 EPA’s 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) v.2, February 5, 2015. PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 10165 and practices described above, ambient air quality concentrations are expected to drop at or below attainment levels immediately. The nonattainment area’s ambient air quality monitor began reporting lead concentrations below the 2008 lead NAAQS for the three-month rolling average for July through September 2013. Based on the RACM analysis and the combined reduction in lead emissions to meet the 2008 Lead NAAQS, which demonstrates RFP, EPA proposes to approve the Kansas SIP as meeting the requirements of sections 172(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the CAA. F. Attainment Demonstration CAA section 172 requires a state to submit a plan for each of its nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment of the applicable ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the specified attainment date. This demonstration should consist of four parts: (1) Technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations of the lead NAAQS; (2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and air quality improvement resulting from already-adopted national, state, and local programs and from potential new state and local measures to meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area; (3) adopted emissions reduction measures with schedules for implementation; and (4) contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. The requirements for the first two parts are described in the sections on emissions inventories, RACT/RACM and air quality above and in the discussion of the attainment demonstration that follows immediately below. Requirements for the third and fourth parts are described in the sections on the control strategy and the contingency measures, respectively. The dispersion modeling is the attainment demonstration used to verify that the control strategies will bring the area into attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. In order to determine whether the emission reduction strategies will result in continued attainment of the NAAQS, the modeled maximum lead concentration in ambient air (based on a rolling three-month average) is added to the calculated background lead concentration of 0.01 mg/m3, then compared to the 2008 Lead NAAQS, which is 0.150 mg/m3. As discussed above, the dispersion modeling predicts that the cumulative impacts of both facilities, with the addition of background lead levels, meet the 2008 E:\FR\FM\29FEP1.SGM 29FEP1 10166 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules Lead NAAQS. The predicted maximum three-month rolling average lead concentration is 0.137 mg/m3. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the Kansas attainment demonstration because the dispersion modeling demonstrates attainment of the standard. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS G. New Source Review (NSR) Within the CAA, section 172(c)(5) requires permits for construction and operation of new and modified major sources located within the nonattainment area. A special permitting process applies to such sources, referred to as a nonattainment new source review program. Section 173 of the CAA mandates nonattainment new source review and an approved state SIP must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165. Kansas Administrative Regulation (K.A.R.) 28–19–16 et seq. require major stationary sources of air pollution emissions located within any area that has been identified as not meeting a national ambient air quality standard for the pollutant for which the source is major to obtain a permit prior to construction or major modification. EPA approved the Kansas nonattainment new source review regulations on January 16, 1990, (55 FR 1420). K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(1)(F) requires any person who proposes to construct or modify a stationary source or emissions unit to obtain a construction permit before commencing such construction or modification if the potential-to-emit of the proposed stationary source or emissions unit, or the increase in the potential-to-emit resulting from the modification, equals or exceeds 0.6 tons per year of lead or lead compound. In addition, K.A.R. 28–19–301(d) states that a construction permit or approval shall not be issued if the air contaminant emissions from the source will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any ambient air quality standard. EPA approved K.A.R. 28–19– 300(a) and K.A.R. 28–19–301(d) on July 17, 1995. (60 FR 36361). H. Contingency Measures As required by CAA section 172(c)(9), the SIP submittal includes contingency measures to be implemented if the area has failed to make RFP or if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by December 2016. If the air quality data for any three-month rolling period after the implementation of the control measures identified in the construction permit for Exide exceed the 0.15 mg/m3 threemonth rolling average lead standard, the facility shall implement the contingency measures set forth in sections X and XI of the construction permit which are VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Feb 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 found in appendix C of the attainment SIP. The Exide construction permit contains the following contingency measures described below. (1) Within 60 days after the effective date of the permit, Exide shall develop and submit to the Kansas Department of Environmental Health (KDHE) for approval, compliance plans that shall be implemented in accordance with section XII of the construction permit and include: a. An analysis of site conditions and operations that potentially may impact, directly or indirectly, KDHE ambient air monitors, including, but not limited to a root cause analysis and corrective/ preventive action process for attaining and maintaining the 0.15 mg/m3 standard, start up and shut down procedures, and other improvements or optimizations that may become evident based on identified potential sources of lead emissions. Each measure is to be assigned a timeline for implementation and to be ranked with regard to ease of implementation, cost and effectiveness; b. A fugitive dust control plan that shall include an implementations timeline for each measures. The plan may include, but not be limited to new enclosures or improvements to existing enclosures, work practices for minimizing fugitive emissions during maintenance activities, and countermeasures during period of adverse meteorological conditions and/ or agricultural conditions and practices on grounds surrounding the plant that may affect fugitive dust impact on KDHE ambient monitors; c. Identification and prioritization of measures, as developed in a. and b. above that shall be implemented immediately upon notification by KDHE of the first lead NAAQS violation. The contingent list of measures may be modified upon approval by KDHE of more effective measures identified by the root cause analysis. The compliance plan found in appendix F of the SIP was placed on public notice on November 20, 2014. No comments were received. KDHE submitted Exide’s compliance plan for approval as an enforceable part of the attainment SIP. (2) Within 30 days after KDHE notification, for each NAAQS violation or for failure to maintain reasonable further progress (RFP), Exide shall develop and submit to KDHE a root cause analysis which shall include but not be limited to: The investigation of production/operations performance, including startup, shutdown, malfunction and maintenance periods and the resulting data and discussion; PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 meteorological data for the site and surrounding area; Exide’s fenceline site monitoring data; and any other conditions or events that may be relevant to lead emissions and/or that may influence or impact KDHE ambient air monitor results. Exide shall develop and submit to KDHE documentation of corrective actions taken for each occurrence for which there is found to be a controllable or preventable contributing factor or root cause. (3) In addition to the root cause analysis described above and corrective/ preventative action process, Exide shall implement selected and approved contingency measures as outlined in the compliance plan developed by Exide described in paragraph (1) above. Exide shall submit to KDHE documentation of implemented measures, including identification of measures and timeline for implementation and effect. (4) Exide shall compile analyses and results from the contingency measures described above in paragraphs (2) and (3) and shall implement further contingency measures identified in the KDHE-approved compliance plan. (5) Exide shall implement measures from the compliance plan for control of fugitive dust and submit to KDHE the documentation from implementation of these measures, the timeline for implementation and effect. (6) Exide shall conduct stack testing on an increased frequency as determined by KDHE. The scope and frequency will be based on KDHE’s evaluation of the root cause analysis required by paragraph (2) above. (7) Exide shall submit to KDHE for approval a revised attainment demonstration with new modeling of emissions rates and/or work practices, or other proposed changes, for attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS. The demonstration shall include the timeline for implementation. These additional contingency measures will also be subject to EPA approval as part of the SIP. Any future changes to contingency measures would require a public hearing at the state level and EPA approval as a formal SIP revision. Until such time as EPA approves any substitute measure, the measures included in the approved SIP will be the enforceable measure. EPA does not intend to approve any substitutions that cannot be implemented in the same timeframe as the original measure. These measures will help ensure compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS as well as meet the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. EPA proposes to approve Kansas’s SIP as meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. E:\FR\FM\29FEP1.SGM 29FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules I. Enforceability As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556, all measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by the state and EPA. The enforceable document included in the Kansas SIP submittal is the construction permit dated August 18, 2014. The construction permit contains all control and contingency measures with enforceable dates for implementation. Upon EPA approval of the SIP submission, Exide’s construction permit will become state and Federally enforceable, and enforceable by citizens under section 304 of the CAA. EPA proposes to approve the Kansas SIP as meeting the requirements of sections 172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556. VI. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to grant full approval of the Kansas attainment demonstration SIP for the Saline County 2008 lead NAAQS nonattainment area. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA identified in EPA’s Final Rule (73 FR 66964, October 15, 2008), and will result in attainment of the 0.15 mg/m3 standard in the Saline County, Kansas, area. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Feb 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • 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 Clean Air Act; 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). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 10167 Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this proposed 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 proposed action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 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 April 29, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not affect the finality of this rulemaking 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 future rule or action. This proposed action 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: February 17, 2016. Mark Hague, Regional Administrator, Region 7. For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below: 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 R—Kansas 2. Amend § 52.870 by: a. Revising paragraph (d) by adding new entry (5) at the end of the table; and ■ b. Revising paragraph (e) by adding entry (43) at the end of the table. The revisions read as follows: ■ ■ § 52.870 Identification of plan. (d) * * * E:\FR\FM\29FEP1.SGM 29FEP1 10168 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules EPA-APPROVED KANSAS SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Name of source Permit or case No. State effective date * * (5) Exide Technologies ................................... * 1690035 * 8/18/14 * * * * * * * * EPA approval date Explanation * * 2/29/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] * * * * * (e) * * * EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date * Salina ............... 2/3/15 Name of nonregulatory SIP provision * * (43) Attainment plan for 2008 lead NAAQS. * * * [FR Doc. 2016–04080 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0402; FRL–9943–07– Region 1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode Island; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Rhode Island regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 fine particle matter (PM2.5), 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Additionally, EPA is proposing to disapprove the submissions with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(H); a federal implementation plan has been in place for this requirement since 1973. EPA is also proposing to correct an earlier approval of this element for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve several statutes submitted by Rhode Island in support of asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Feb 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 EPA approval date * * * 2/29/16 [Insert Federal Register citation]. * * their demonstration that the infrastructure requirements of the CAA have been met. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state’s air quality management program are adequate to meet the state’s responsibilities under the CAA. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– OAR–2015–0402 at http:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to Arnold.Anne@EPA.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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 the person identified in the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ section. For the full EPA public comment policy, PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Explanation Sfmt 4702 * * [EPA–R07–OAR–2015– 0708]. * information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Air Programs Branch, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05–02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109– 3912; (617) 918–1664; Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows: I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? II. What is the background of these SIP submissions? A. What Rhode Island SIP submissions does this rulemaking address? B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions? C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? E:\FR\FM\29FEP1.SGM 29FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 39 (Monday, February 29, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10162-10168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04080]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0708; FRL-9942-78-Region 7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Kansas; 2015 Kansas State Implementation Plan for the 2008 
Lead Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to grant 
full approval of Kansas's attainment demonstration State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 
nonattainment area of Salina, Saline County, Kansas, received by EPA on 
February 25, 2015. The applicable standard addressed in this action is 
the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP 
submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the 
Clean Air Act identified in EPA's Final Rule published in the Federal 
Register on October 15, 2008, and will bring the designated portions of 
Salina, Kansas, into attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\) lead NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0708, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or

[[Page 10163]]

other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in www.regulations.gov or at the EPA, Air Planning and 
Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The 
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. The interested 
persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment 
with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Doolan, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner 
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7719, or by email at 
doolan.stephanie@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been 
met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Background
V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP for the 2008 
Lead NAAQS
    A. Facility Description
    B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input 
Data
    C. Control Strategy
    D. Modeling Results
    E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable 
Further Progress (RFP)
    F. Attainment Demonstration
    G. New Source Review (NSR)
    H. Contingency Measures
    I. Enforceability
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    In this document, EPA is addressing Kansas' attainment 
demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the lead National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area in portions of 
Salina, Saline County, Kansas. The applicable standard addressed in 
this action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes 
that the SIP submitted by the state satisfies the applicable 
requirements of the CAA identified in EPA's Final Rule (73 FR 66964, 
October 15, 2008), and will bring the area into attainment of the 0.15 
microgram per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) lead NAAQS.

II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP 
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also 
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In 
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA), including section 110 and implementing 
regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Kansas' attainment 
demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is proposing this action 
in order to solicit comments. Final rulemaking will occur after 
consideration of any comments received.

IV. Background

    EPA established the NAAQS for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR 
46246). On October 15, 2008, EPA established a new lead NAAQS of 0.15 
[mu]g/m\3\ in air, measured as a rolling three-month average. (73 FR 
66964). On November 22, 2011, portions of Salina, Saline County, 
Kansas, were designated as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. (76 
FR 72097). Under sections 191(a) and 192(a)of the CAA, Kansas is 
required to submit to EPA an attainment demonstration SIP revision for 
lead and to demonstrate the nonattainment area will reach attainment of 
the 2008 lead NAAQS no later than five years from the date of the 
nonattainment area designation.

V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP for the 2008 
Lead NAAQS

A. Facility Description

    There are two lead-emitting sources contributing to the Salina lead 
nonattainment area: Exide Technologies (Exide) and Metlcast Products 
(Metlcast). A description of the operation of these two facilities is 
presented below.
1. Exide Process Description
    The Exide facility in Salina, Kansas, manufactures lead acid 
batteries for automobiles, trucks, and watercraft. Lead emissions 
result from breaking open used batteries, re-melting the lead, and 
reformulating new batteries. The lead is released in particulate form 
and generally captured within building structures or by air pollution 
control equipment; however, some lead particulates escape to the 
ambient air, despite facility process enclosures and the efficiency of 
air pollution control equipment. The facility reports lead emissions 
greater than 0.5 tons per year (tpy).
    The production operations at the facility consist of seven pasting 
lines, five ball mills and ten oxide mills with emissions controlled by 
15 process baghouses, 16 battery assembly lines, and 41 lead reclaim 
pots with emissions controlled for 29 of those pots by five baghouses. 
Lead alloy ingots are charged to a melting pot, from which the molten 
lead flows into molds that form the battery grids. Paste is made in a 
batch process. A mixture of lead oxide powder, water, and sulfuric acid 
produces a positive paste, and the same ingredients in a slightly 
difference proportion with the addition of an expander make the 
negative paste. Pasting machines then force pastes into the interstices 
of the grids, which are then made into plates. The pasted plates are 
then cured through alternating cycles of steaming and drying. From the 
ovens, the cured plates are loaded into the assembly process where they 
are automatically stacked in an alternating positive/negative order. 
Emissions from the battery manufacturing process are controlled by 
baghouses.
2. Metlcast Process Description
    The Metlcast facility is located to the north of the Exide 
facility, near the violating lead monitor. The Metlcast facility uses 
three electric induction furnaces to cast gray iron. The scrap metal 
used to produce the gray iron most likely has varying amounts of lead, 
depending on the source of the scrap. When heated, the lead is driven 
off the molten metal in the form of particulates. Elemental lead and 
lead compounds in the form of particulates are captured by the 
facility's air pollution control equipment; however, some lead-
contaminated particulates escape to the ambient air.

B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data

    Exide conducted air dispersion modeling to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the proposed control strategy. Kansas reviewed the 
results of the air model which demonstrates attainment of the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS and the results form the basis of the attainment SIP. EPA 
conducted an independent review of the modeling. The results of the 
modeling will be discussed in more detail in section V.C. of this 
document.

[[Page 10164]]

    The model, AERMOD, was utilized and is EPA's preferred model for 
demonstrating attainment of the lead NAAQS. AERMOD estimates the 
combined ambient impact of sources by simulating Gaussian dispersion of 
emissions plumes. Emission rates, wind speed and direction, atmospheric 
mixing heights, terrain, plume rise from stack emissions, initial 
dispersion characteristics of fugitive sources, particle size and 
density are all factors considered by the model when estimating ambient 
impacts. Exide conducted the dispersion modeling in accordance with 
``Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Protocol for SIP Attainment 
Demonstration,'' dated March 2013. Results of the modeling are reported 
in appendix A of the Kansas attainment SIP, available in the docket 
associated with this proposed action.
    Exide used the surface and upper air meteorological data from the 
Salina airport (SLN) for years 2007 through 2011. EPA recommends the 
use of five years of meteorological data for the model (40 CFR part 51, 
appendix W, section 8.3.1.2). EPA conducted a review of the 
meteorological data used for the modeling and agreed with Kansas's 
determination that it is representative of meteorological conditions in 
the nonattainment area. The meteorological data were run through 
AERMOD's pre-processors to make the data usable by the model.
    As required by section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, an emission inventory 
was developed for this nonattainment area. At Exide, ten baghouses were 
each modeled as separate point sources and ten oxide mills stacks were 
modeled as discharging from one 65-foot stack. Potential emissions 
rates for the point sources were determined from stack test data, using 
an average of three runs from the highest measured average emissions 
rates since 2007, or the most recent infrastructure update for the 
source. Appendix A of the attainment SIP contains a detailed listing of 
the emissions modeled for each point source. A factor of 3.3 to 12 
times each point source emission rate was applied to demonstrate the 
levels necessary to achieve attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Fugitive sources of lead at the Exide facility include process 
fugitives and vehicular fugitives from truck haul routes. The fugitive 
emissions were modeled as volume sources. Building process fugitives 
were estimated with a 99 percent capture efficiency on the basis of 
total building enclosures with negative pressure and local exhaust 
ventilation (LEV). Haul route fugitives were estimated using the Paved 
Roads section of Chapter 13.2.1 of EPA's AP-42 guidelines.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth 
Edition, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Metlcast's emissions were modeled as volume sources because its 
operations occur in an open building with wall and roof vents, so there 
are no stacks from which to conduct emissions testing. Emissions 
estimates were based on the volatilized fraction of the lead fraction 
of the facility's 2011 production, which was estimated to be 6910 tons. 
The quantity of lead emissions was estimated over a 12-hour per day 
operating shift over 365 days per year.
    In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, background 
concentrations must be considered when determining NAAQS compliance. 
Background concentrations are intended to include impacts attributable 
to natural sources, nearby sources (excluding the dominant source(s)), 
and unidentified sources. The calculated background concentration 
includes all sources of lead not already included in the model run 
script. The background concentration includes distant sources of lead 
or naturally occurring lead in soils that has become re-entrained in 
the atmosphere.
    A background value is typically calculated by averaging the 
monitored concentrations of lead in air from an ambient air monitor 
within the nonattainment area. In this case, however, the ambient air 
monitor is located between the two facilities so that it is not 
possible to calculate a background value for lead from the monitoring 
data that does not include the influence of one of the facilities, 
regardless of wind direction. Instead, Kansas used a background level 
of 0.01 [mu]g/m\3\ which is the national non-source oriented monthly 
average ambient lead concentration determined by EPA in its final 
``Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (ISA),'' dated June 2013 
(http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/lead.htm). Tables 2-13 and 2-15 of the ISA 
provide detailed statistics based upon the national monitoring network 
to support a background lead level of 0.01 [mu]g/m\3\. The use of this 
nationally determined background level is further supported by data 
from the temporary non-source oriented lead monitor located north of 
the nonattainment area in Salina, Kansas, which recorded an average 
lead concentration of 0.005 [mu]g/m\3\. Also, a lead monitor formerly 
located in Wichita, Kansas, reported average concentrations of 0.0076 
[mu]g/m\3\.
    In the absence of the ability to establish a background lead level 
derived from a monitor within the nonattainment area, EPA agrees that 
the use of this non-source oriented average monthly ambient lead value 
from the ISA represents a conservative estimate of background for use 
in the Salina attainment modeling.

C. Control Strategy

    The following describes the control strategy detailed in the Kansas 
attainment SIP to achieve the 2008 lead NAAQS. The Kansas control 
strategy focuses on control measures to be implemented at Exide because 
it is the greater source of lead emissions of the two facilities in the 
nonattainment area.
    In April 2006, Exide began a five-year project to replace all ten 
of its oxide mills. The project included replacement of associated 
baghouses and the addition of HEPA filters for each oxide mill source. 
The project was completed in March 2011. On October 1, 2013, the oxide 
mill baghouse emissions were routed to a new 65-foot stack.
    From September 2009 to February 2014, Exide also replaced its five 
general purpose baghouses (BH1 through BH5). Baghouse 1 (BH1) was 
replaced and its stack height was increased to 80 feet in a project 
completed on February 19, 2014.
    On July 19, 2013, Exide completed increasing the stack heights of 
the ball mill baghouses (BH11 through BH15) by 37 feet as necessary by 
the attainment modeling.
    To address process fugitives, Exide installed LEVs over processing 
operations located in negative pressure total enclosures to increase 
the effectiveness of lead particulate capture. This 99 percent 
reduction in emissions from the ball mill process is required by the 
Federally-enforceable construction permit issued by Kansas to Exide, 
effective date August 18, 2014. The permit is appendix C of the 
attainment SIP. The construction permit contains total enclosure 
standards including the requirement to maintain a negative pressure of 
at least 0.013 mm of mercury which is consistent with the secondary 
lead smelter NESHAP (77 FR 556, January 5, 2012). Although the Exide 
facility is not a secondary lead smelter, the concepts for controlling 
lead emissions are similar, and are therefore relevant.
    The Federally-enforceable construction permit also required Exide 
to complete paving all roadways by July 31, 2014. The additional paving 
of an area of approximately 15,200 square yards in the northwest 
section of the facility demonstrates a reduction of 0.04 tons of lead 
per year which represents

[[Page 10165]]

a 29 percent reduction in lead emissions.

D. Modeling Results

    Exide's modeling report can be found in appendix A of the Kansas 
attainment SIP. The modeling was conducted to determine the impacts of 
the additive lead emissions of both the Exide and Metlcast facilities, 
and the assumed area background of 0.01 [mu]g/m\3\ lead, on off-site 
receptors including the air monitor and two nearby elementary schools.
    The results of the modeling demonstrate that with the control 
strategy described above in paragraph V.C. above, the facilities will 
attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS. At the point of maximum impact, which is 
approximately 50 feet to the northeast of the ambient air monitor, the 
model predicts a lead concentration of 0.137 [mu]g/m\3\. This is below 
the 2008 Lead NAAQS of 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. At the ambient air monitor, the 
model predicts a lead concentration of 0.137 [mu]g/m\3\.
    By comparison, the ambient air monitoring data demonstrate that the 
facility has measured lead concentrations below the 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ 
lead standard since the rolling calendar quarter ending September of 
2013. The average rolling quarterly lead level in ambient air from the 
quarter ending September 2013 to the quarter ending May 2015 is 0.096 
[mu]g/m\3\, which is less than the model-predicted lead level.
    Exide also modeled the lead concentrations at two nearby elementary 
schools to ensure that there would be no unacceptable lead impacts. At 
Schilling Elementary School, the ambient lead levels in air are 
predicted to be 0.018 [mu]g/m\3\, and the predicted lead levels for 
Coronado Elementary School are predicted to be 0.028 [mu]g/m\3\. The 
predicted levels of lead in ambient air are less than 15 percent of the 
standard; therefore, there is no concern for exceeding the standard at 
either of these locations under the Federally-enforceable control 
strategy described in paragraph V.C. above.
    EPA reviewed and independently verified the modeling conducted by 
Exide. Based on EPA's analysis of the attainment modeling and its 
outcomes, EPA believes that the Kansas control strategy will bring the 
designated portions of Saline County, Kansas, into attainment of the 
2008 Lead NAAQS.

E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress 
(RFP)

    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires nonattainment areas to 
implement all RACM, including emissions reductions through the adoption 
of Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT), as expeditiously 
as practicable. EPA interprets this as requiring all nonattainment 
areas to consider all available controls and to implement all measures 
that are determined to be reasonably available, except that measures 
which will not assist the area to more expeditiously attain the 
standard are not required to be implemented.\2\ In March 2012, EPA 
issued guidance titled, ``Implementation of Reasonably Available 
Control Measures (RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions'' (RACM 
Guidance).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 58 FR 67751, December 22, 1993, for a discussion of this 
interpretation as it relates to lead.
    \3\ http://www.epa.gov/oar/lead/pdfs/2012ImplementationGuide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires areas designated as 
nonattainment for criteria pollutants to include a demonstration of 
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) in attainment demonstrations. Section 
171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as annual incremental reductions in 
emissions of the relevant air pollutants as required by part D, or 
emission reductions that may reasonably be required by EPA to ensure 
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. Part D does 
not include specific RFP requirements for lead.
    EPA recommends a RACT analysis for facilities emitting 0.5 tpy lead 
per year or more. (73 FR 66964). In 2011, Exide reported lead emissions 
of 1.45 tons per year.\4\ Metlcast's annual emissions were 
conservatively estimated based on its production to be approximately 
0.004 tons of lead per year. Thus, only Exide exceeds the threshold for 
determining RACT to comply with the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Page 12 of the 
lead attainment SIP discusses the Kansas RACT/RACM analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) v.2, February 
5, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kansas determined that the ongoing emission control projects 
detailed in appendix B of the attainment SIP document and listed above 
in paragraph V.C. meet the requirements of EPA's RACM Guidance. As 
stated in the final lead NAAQS rule, RFP is satisfied by the strict 
adherence to a compliance schedule which is expected to periodically 
yield significant emission reductions. The control measures described 
in paragraph V.C. above have been modeled and demonstrated to achieve 
the lead NAAQS and also comply with RACM and RFP.
    RFP is addressed by the control strategy occurring in a timeframe 
consistent with the CAA. Upon implementation of the control strategy 
and practices described above, ambient air quality concentrations are 
expected to drop at or below attainment levels immediately. The 
nonattainment area's ambient air quality monitor began reporting lead 
concentrations below the 2008 lead NAAQS for the three-month rolling 
average for July through September 2013.
    Based on the RACM analysis and the combined reduction in lead 
emissions to meet the 2008 Lead NAAQS, which demonstrates RFP, EPA 
proposes to approve the Kansas SIP as meeting the requirements of 
sections 172(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the CAA.

F. Attainment Demonstration

    CAA section 172 requires a state to submit a plan for each of its 
nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment of the applicable 
ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than the specified attainment date. This demonstration should 
consist of four parts: (1) Technical analyses that locate, identify, 
and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations 
of the lead NAAQS; (2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and 
air quality improvement resulting from already-adopted national, state, 
and local programs and from potential new state and local measures to 
meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area; (3) adopted 
emissions reduction measures with schedules for implementation; and (4) 
contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
    The requirements for the first two parts are described in the 
sections on emissions inventories, RACT/RACM and air quality above and 
in the discussion of the attainment demonstration that follows 
immediately below. Requirements for the third and fourth parts are 
described in the sections on the control strategy and the contingency 
measures, respectively.
    The dispersion modeling is the attainment demonstration used to 
verify that the control strategies will bring the area into attainment 
of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. In order to determine whether the emission 
reduction strategies will result in continued attainment of the NAAQS, 
the modeled maximum lead concentration in ambient air (based on a 
rolling three-month average) is added to the calculated background lead 
concentration of 0.01 [mu]g/m\3\, then compared to the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 
which is 0.150 [mu]g/m\3\. As discussed above, the dispersion modeling 
predicts that the cumulative impacts of both facilities, with the 
addition of background lead levels, meet the 2008

[[Page 10166]]

Lead NAAQS. The predicted maximum three-month rolling average lead 
concentration is 0.137 [mu]g/m\3\. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve 
the Kansas attainment demonstration because the dispersion modeling 
demonstrates attainment of the standard.

G. New Source Review (NSR)

    Within the CAA, section 172(c)(5) requires permits for construction 
and operation of new and modified major sources located within the 
nonattainment area. A special permitting process applies to such 
sources, referred to as a nonattainment new source review program. 
Section 173 of the CAA mandates nonattainment new source review and an 
approved state SIP must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165.
    Kansas Administrative Regulation (K.A.R.) 28-19-16 et seq. require 
major stationary sources of air pollution emissions located within any 
area that has been identified as not meeting a national ambient air 
quality standard for the pollutant for which the source is major to 
obtain a permit prior to construction or major modification. EPA 
approved the Kansas nonattainment new source review regulations on 
January 16, 1990, (55 FR 1420).
    K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(1)(F) requires any person who proposes to 
construct or modify a stationary source or emissions unit to obtain a 
construction permit before commencing such construction or modification 
if the potential-to-emit of the proposed stationary source or emissions 
unit, or the increase in the potential-to-emit resulting from the 
modification, equals or exceeds 0.6 tons per year of lead or lead 
compound. In addition, K.A.R. 28-19-301(d) states that a construction 
permit or approval shall not be issued if the air contaminant emissions 
from the source will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of 
any ambient air quality standard. EPA approved K.A.R. 28-19-300(a) and 
K.A.R. 28-19-301(d) on July 17, 1995. (60 FR 36361).

H. Contingency Measures

    As required by CAA section 172(c)(9), the SIP submittal includes 
contingency measures to be implemented if the area has failed to make 
RFP or if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by December 2016. If the 
air quality data for any three-month rolling period after the 
implementation of the control measures identified in the construction 
permit for Exide exceed the 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ three-month rolling average 
lead standard, the facility shall implement the contingency measures 
set forth in sections X and XI of the construction permit which are 
found in appendix C of the attainment SIP.
    The Exide construction permit contains the following contingency 
measures described below.
    (1) Within 60 days after the effective date of the permit, Exide 
shall develop and submit to the Kansas Department of Environmental 
Health (KDHE) for approval, compliance plans that shall be implemented 
in accordance with section XII of the construction permit and include:
    a. An analysis of site conditions and operations that potentially 
may impact, directly or indirectly, KDHE ambient air monitors, 
including, but not limited to a root cause analysis and corrective/
preventive action process for attaining and maintaining the 0.15 [mu]g/
m\3\ standard, start up and shut down procedures, and other 
improvements or optimizations that may become evident based on 
identified potential sources of lead emissions. Each measure is to be 
assigned a timeline for implementation and to be ranked with regard to 
ease of implementation, cost and effectiveness;
    b. A fugitive dust control plan that shall include an 
implementations timeline for each measures. The plan may include, but 
not be limited to new enclosures or improvements to existing 
enclosures, work practices for minimizing fugitive emissions during 
maintenance activities, and countermeasures during period of adverse 
meteorological conditions and/or agricultural conditions and practices 
on grounds surrounding the plant that may affect fugitive dust impact 
on KDHE ambient monitors;
    c. Identification and prioritization of measures, as developed in 
a. and b. above that shall be implemented immediately upon notification 
by KDHE of the first lead NAAQS violation. The contingent list of 
measures may be modified upon approval by KDHE of more effective 
measures identified by the root cause analysis.
    The compliance plan found in appendix F of the SIP was placed on 
public notice on November 20, 2014. No comments were received. KDHE 
submitted Exide's compliance plan for approval as an enforceable part 
of the attainment SIP.
    (2) Within 30 days after KDHE notification, for each NAAQS 
violation or for failure to maintain reasonable further progress (RFP), 
Exide shall develop and submit to KDHE a root cause analysis which 
shall include but not be limited to: The investigation of production/
operations performance, including startup, shutdown, malfunction and 
maintenance periods and the resulting data and discussion; 
meteorological data for the site and surrounding area; Exide's 
fenceline site monitoring data; and any other conditions or events that 
may be relevant to lead emissions and/or that may influence or impact 
KDHE ambient air monitor results. Exide shall develop and submit to 
KDHE documentation of corrective actions taken for each occurrence for 
which there is found to be a controllable or preventable contributing 
factor or root cause.
    (3) In addition to the root cause analysis described above and 
corrective/preventative action process, Exide shall implement selected 
and approved contingency measures as outlined in the compliance plan 
developed by Exide described in paragraph (1) above. Exide shall submit 
to KDHE documentation of implemented measures, including identification 
of measures and timeline for implementation and effect.
    (4) Exide shall compile analyses and results from the contingency 
measures described above in paragraphs (2) and (3) and shall implement 
further contingency measures identified in the KDHE-approved compliance 
plan.
    (5) Exide shall implement measures from the compliance plan for 
control of fugitive dust and submit to KDHE the documentation from 
implementation of these measures, the timeline for implementation and 
effect.
    (6) Exide shall conduct stack testing on an increased frequency as 
determined by KDHE. The scope and frequency will be based on KDHE's 
evaluation of the root cause analysis required by paragraph (2) above.
    (7) Exide shall submit to KDHE for approval a revised attainment 
demonstration with new modeling of emissions rates and/or work 
practices, or other proposed changes, for attainment of the 2008 lead 
NAAQS. The demonstration shall include the timeline for implementation.
    These additional contingency measures will also be subject to EPA 
approval as part of the SIP. Any future changes to contingency measures 
would require a public hearing at the state level and EPA approval as a 
formal SIP revision. Until such time as EPA approves any substitute 
measure, the measures included in the approved SIP will be the 
enforceable measure. EPA does not intend to approve any substitutions 
that cannot be implemented in the same timeframe as the original 
measure. These measures will help ensure compliance with the 2008 lead 
NAAQS as well as meet the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. 
EPA proposes to approve Kansas's SIP as meeting the requirements of 
section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

[[Page 10167]]

I. Enforceability

    As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the 
CAA, and 57 FR 13556, all measures and other elements in the SIP must 
be enforceable by the state and EPA. The enforceable document included 
in the Kansas SIP submittal is the construction permit dated August 18, 
2014. The construction permit contains all control and contingency 
measures with enforceable dates for implementation. Upon EPA approval 
of the SIP submission, Exide's construction permit will become state 
and Federally enforceable, and enforceable by citizens under section 
304 of the CAA.
    EPA proposes to approve the Kansas SIP as meeting the requirements 
of sections 172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of the Kansas attainment 
demonstration SIP for the Saline County 2008 lead NAAQS nonattainment 
area. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the state satisfies the 
applicable requirements of the CAA identified in EPA's Final Rule (73 
FR 66964, October 15, 2008), and will result in attainment of the 0.15 
[mu]g/m\3\ standard in the Saline County, Kansas, area.

Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. 
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally 
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or at the 
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 
more information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 Clean Air Act; 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 proposed 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 proposed action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).
    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 April 29, 2016. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not 
affect the finality of this rulemaking 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 
future rule or action. This proposed action 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 17, 2016.
Mark Hague,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 
CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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 R--Kansas

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.870 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d) by adding new entry (5) at the end of the 
table; and
0
b. Revising paragraph (e) by adding entry (43) at the end of the table.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  52.870  Identification of plan.

    (d) * * *

[[Page 10168]]



                                EPA-Approved Kansas Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Permit or case  State effective
          Name of source                 No.              date         EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(5) Exide Technologies...........         1690035          8/18/14   2/29/16 [Insert
                                                                      Federal Register
                                                                      citation]
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                                      EPA-Approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Applicable geographic or    State submittal
 Name of nonregulatory SIP provision        nonattainment area             date          EPA approval date                    Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
(43) Attainment plan for 2008 lead     Salina......................          2/3/15   2/29/16 [Insert Federal  [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0708].
 NAAQS.                                                                                Register citation].
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-04080 Filed 2-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P