10162 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

revising the attainment demonstration 

modeling to address this change in 

TBRCI’s operating status. Therefore, 

while we are proposing disapproval, the 

EPA fully expects Puerto Rico to submit 

a new Attainment Demonstration SIP to 

reflect this change in TBRCI’s operating 

status in the Arecibo Area. If the 

Attainment Demonstration SIP is 

submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision, 

the EPA will review it and, if it is 

approvable, will withdraw the proposed 

disapproval. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

a. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

b. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

c. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

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

et seq.). This action will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. This 

action merely disapproves Puerto Rico’s 

Lead SIP as not meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the plan. 

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not impose any 

additional enforceable duty beyond that 

which is required by Puerto Rico law 

because this rule disapproves a SIP 

revision and it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

Commonwealth, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the Commonwealth, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

disapproves the Puerto Rico Lead SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

f. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000); 

g. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it disapproves 

the Puerto Rico Lead SIP. 

h. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001). 

i. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state or 

commonwealth choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 

context, in the absence of a prior 

existing requirement for the 

Commonwealth to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS), the EPA has 

no authority to disapprove a 

commonwealth submission for failure to 

use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent 

with applicable law for the EPA, when 

it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS 

in place of a SIP submission that 

otherwise satisfies the provisions of the 

CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

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

List of Subjects in 40 Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Reporting and Recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: February 22, 2016. 

Judith Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0708; FRL–9942–78– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Kansas; 2015 Kansas State 

Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to grant full 

approval of Kansas’s attainment 

demonstration State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

nonattainment area of Salina, Saline 

County, Kansas, received by EPA on 

February 25, 2015. The applicable 

standard addressed in this action is the 

lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 

2008. EPA believes that the SIP 

submitted by the state satisfies the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act identified in EPA’s Final Rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 15, 2008, and will bring the 

designated portions of Salina, Kansas, 

into attainment of the 0.15 microgram 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) lead NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0708, to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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


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

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10164 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1AP–42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, Fifth Edition, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ 

ap42/. 

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

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 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10165 

2See 58 FR 67751, December 22, 1993, for a 

discussion of this interpretation as it relates to lead. 

3http://www.epa.gov/oar/lead/pdfs/

2012ImplementationGuide.pdf. 

4EPA’s 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

v.2, February 5, 2015. 

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 

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 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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. 

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 

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; 

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. 


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

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 

■ 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) * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(5) Exide Technologies ................................... 1690035 8/18/14 2/29/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(43) Attainment plan for 2008 lead 

NAAQS.

Salina ............... 2/3/15 2/29/16 [Insert Federal Register citation].[EPA–R07–OAR–2015– 

0708]. 

* * * * * * * 

[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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve several statutes 

submitted by Rhode Island in support of 

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, 

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? 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS