1136 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1A more detailed analysis of adverse health 

effects associated with lead exposure can be found 

in the Preamble of the 2008 lead NAAQS final rule, 

published in the Federal Register on November 12, 

2008. See 73 FR 66964. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0773; FRL–9941–07– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the 

North Reading Area for the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or 

Pennsylvania). This revision pertains to 

the Commonwealth’s attainment plan 

for the North Reading nonattainment 

area (‘‘North Reading Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) 

for the 2008 lead national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS), and 

includes a base year emissions 

inventory, an analysis of reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) 

(including reasonably available control 

technology (RACT)), a plan for 

reasonable further progress (RFP), a 

modeling demonstration of lead NAAQS 

attainment, and contingency measures. 

This action is being taken under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 10, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2015–0773 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0773, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2015– 

0773. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI, or otherwise 

protected, through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available in 

www.regulations.gov or may be viewed 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by 

email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

12, 2015, the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection (PADEP) 

submitted a revision to its SIP for the 

purpose of demonstrating attainment of 

the 2008 lead NAAQS in the North 

Reading Area. Pennsylvania’s lead 

attainment plan for the Area includes a 

base year emissions inventory, a 

modeling demonstration of lead NAAQS 

attainment, an analysis of RACM, 

RACT, and RFP, and contingency 

measures. The attainment plan includes 

portions of two Consent Order and 

Agreements (COA) between PADEP and 

Exide Technologies (Exide) and Yuasa 

Battery, Inc. (Yuasa) which demonstrate 

how Pennsylvania will achieve and 

maintain compliance with the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. The lead attainment plan 

specifically includes paragraph 3 of the 

COA between Exide and PADEP, dated 

June 15, 2015, and paragraphs 5 and 22 

of the COA between Yuasa and PADEP, 

dated June 12, 2015. 

EPA has determined that 

Pennsylvania’s attainment plan for the 

2008 lead NAAQS for the North Reading 

Area meets the applicable requirements 

of the CAA. Thus, EPA is proposing to 

approve Pennsylvania’s attainment plan 

for the North Reading Area and 

paragraphs 3, 5, and 22, respectively, of 

the COAs between PADEP and Exide 

and Yuasa, as submitted on August 12, 

2015. 

EPA’s analysis and findings are 

discussed for each applicable 

requirement in this rulemaking action. 

The three Technical Support Documents 

(TSDs) for this proposed action contain 

additional details on the base year 

inventory, modeling, control strategies, 

RFP, and contingency measures of the 

attainment demonstration. Copies of 

these TSDs can be found in the docket 

for this proposed action (EPA–R03– 

OAR–2015–0773) at 

www.regulations.gov. 

I. Background 

The North Reading attainment plan 

assesses lead emissions within the Area. 

Lead is a metal found naturally in the 

environment and present in some 

manufactured products. Human 

exposure to lead can cause a variety of 

adverse health effects, especially in 

children.1

Lead is emitted into the air from many 

sources, encompassing a wide variety of 

stationary and mobile source types. In 

the United States, there has been a 

decrease in the emissions of lead from 

mobile sources, resulting from the 

reduction of lead additives to fuel. Most 

of the lead emissions in the North 

Reading Area come from permitted 

stationary sources within the Area. 

On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), 

EPA established a 2008 primary and 

secondary lead NAAQS at 0.15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1137 

2EPA completed a second and final round of 

designations for the 2008 lead NAAQS on 

November 22, 2011. See 76 FR 72097. No additional 

areas in Pennsylvania were designated as 

nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS in the 

November 22, 2011 designations. 

3The Laureldale North monitor (AQS 42–011– 

0020) is associated with the Exide facility located 

in Berks County and was installed in accordance 

with EPA’s network design requirements for the 

2008 lead NAAQS. 73 FR 66964. EPA reaffirmed 

placement of lead ambient air monitors in 

Pennsylvania when approving Pennsylvania’s lead 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 NAAQS as meeting 

requirements in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA. See 79 FR 19009 (April 7, 2014). EPA’s 

approval of the lead infrastructure SIP, particularly 

regarding the approval of Pennsylvania’s 

monitoring locations for section 110(a)(2)(B), was 

upheld in 2015 by the United States Court of 

Appeal for the Third Circuit. Berks County v. EPA, 

3rd Cir. No. 14–2913, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14050 

(August 11, 2015). 

4See ‘‘Addendum to the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

Implementation Questions and Answers’’ dated 

August 10, 2012, which is included in EPA’s SIP 

Toolkit located at www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/

implement.html. 

based on a maximum arithmetic 3- 

month mean concentration for a 3-year 

period. See 40 CFR 50.16. Following 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA, 

as described in section 107(d)(1), to 

designate areas throughout the United 

States as attaining or not attaining the 

NAAQS. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 

71033), EPA published its initial air 

quality designations and classifications 

for the 2008 lead NAAQS based upon 

air quality monitoring data for calendar 

years 2007–2009. The November 22, 

2010 notice included the nonattainment 

designation of the North Reading Area; 

an area within Berks County in the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

bounded by Alsace Township, 

Laureldale Borough, and Muhlenberg 

Township. See 76 FR 72097. The 

November 22, 2010 designations, 

including the North Reading Area 

nonattainment designation, became 

effective on December 31, 2010.2

The designation of the North Reading 

Area as nonattainment for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS triggered requirements under 

section 191(a) of the CAA, requiring 

Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision 

with a plan for how the Area will attain 

the 2008 lead NAAQS, as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than 

December 31, 2015. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On August 12, 2015, in accordance 

with section 172(c) of the CAA, 

Pennsylvania submitted an attainment 

plan for the North Reading Area which 

includes a base year emissions 

inventory, an attainment demonstration, 

an analysis of RACM and RACT, 

provisions for RFP, and contingency 

measures. The SIP revision also 

includes paragraph 3 of the COA 

between Exide and PADEP and 

paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA 

between Yuasa and PADEP. EPA’s 

analysis of the submitted attainment 

plan includes a review of these elements 

for the North Reading Area. 

As part of the promulgation of the 

2008 lead NAAQS, EPA revised the air 

monitoring requirements for lead. In 

accordance with the revised monitoring 

requirements, air monitors near sources 

in Pennsylvania that emit one ton per 

year (tpy) or more were in place by 

January 2010. The monitoring 

requirements for lead were further 

revised on December 27, 2010, when 

EPA lowered the monitoring 

requirement for stationary sources down 

to those that emit 0.5 tpy of lead among 

other changes. See 75 FR 81126. 

Pennsylvania’s lead monitoring 

network consists of lead monitors that 

have been designated by EPA as either 

Reference or Equivalent monitors and 

are subject to the federal quality 

assurance requirements of 40 CFR part 

58, appendix A. All samplers are 

located at sites that have met the 

minimum siting requirements of 40 CFR 

part 58, appendices D and E. 

PADEP currently operates two 

ambient air monitors in the North 

Reading Area. The Laureldale South 

monitor has been in place since 1976 

and the Laureldale North monitor since 

January 1, 2010.3 As required in 40 CFR 

58.10, Pennsylvania must provide EPA 

with an annual network design plan in 

order to inform both EPA and the public 

of any planned changes to the sampling 

network for the next year. EPA 

approved Pennsylvania’s 2015 Annual 

Air Quality Monitoring Network Design 

Plan, the most recent year available at 

the time of this evaluation, on 

November 12, 2015. 

1. Emissions Inventory Requirements 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

a state to submit a SIP that includes a 

‘‘comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutant’’ in the 

nonattainment area. In the 2008 lead 

NAAQS rulemaking on November 12, 

2008, EPA finalized guidance related to 

the emissions inventories requirements 

for lead. See 73 FR 66964. 

For the base year inventory of actual 

lead emissions for CAA 172(c)(3), EPA 

recommends using either 2010 or 2011 

as the base year, but does provide 

flexibility for using other inventory 

years if states can show another year is 

more appropriate. Additionally, EPA 

guidance provides that actual emissions 

should be used for purposes of the base 

year inventory.4 PADEP submitted a 

2010 inventory for the point sources of 

lead emissions in the North Reading 

Area, which includes Exide and Yuasa. 

For the nonpoint sources of lead 

emissions, PADEP submitted EPA’s 

2011 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) v2 data as a surrogate for the 2010 

inventory. The nonpoint source values 

for the North Reading Area were 

calculated using Berks County data 

apportioned by population. 

EPA reviewed the results, procedures, 

and methodologies for Pennsylvania’s 

submission and found them to be 

reasonable for calculating the lead base 

year inventory for section 172(c)(3) of 

the CAA and in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.117(e). A more detailed description 

of the PADEP’s use and calculation of 

inventories as well as EPA’s analysis of 

PADEP’s base inventory for CAA 

requirements is included in the TSD 

prepared in support of this proposed 

rulemaking action. A copy of the Base 

Inventory TSD can be found in the 

docket for this proposed action (EPA– 

R03–OAR–2015–0773) at 

www.regulations.gov. In this action, 

EPA is proposing to approve the base 

year emissions inventory submitted by 

Pennsylvania on August 12, 2015, as it 

meets requirements in section 172(c)(3) 

of the CAA. 

2. Attainment Planning Modeling 

Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA and the 

lead SIP regulations found at 40 CFR 

51.117 require states to employ 

atmospheric dispersion modeling for the 

demonstration of attainment of the lead 

NAAQS for areas in the vicinity of point 

sources listed in 40 CFR 51.117(a)(1), as 

expeditiously as practicable. The 

demonstration must meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and part 

51, appendix W, and include inventory 

data, modeling results, and emissions 

reduction analyses on which the state 

has based its projected attainment. All 

these requirements comprise the 

‘‘attainment plan’’ that is required for 

lead nonattainment areas. 

As part of a state’s attainment plan, 40 

CFR 51.117(a) provides that states must 

include an analysis showing that the SIP 

will attain and maintain the standard in 

areas in the vicinity of certain point 

sources that are emitting significant 

emissions of lead and also in ‘‘[a]ny 

other area that has lead air 

concentrations in excess of the national 

ambient air quality standard 

concentration.’’ These sources include 

primary and secondary lead smelters, 

primary copper smelters, lead gasoline 

additive plants, lead-acid storage battery 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1138 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5PADEP’s RACM/RACT proposal for Exide, 

which includes measures that would require the 

facility to meet the requirements of the Secondary 

Lead Smelting NESHAP, is contained within 

Exide’s Plan Approval No. 06–05066I. 

6The daily averages used to calculate 3-month 

averages are given in appendices A–2 and A–3 in 

PADEP’s August 12, 2015 submittal, which can be 

found in docket for this rulemaking action. 

7Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality 

System Data Mart [internet database] available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/aqsdatamart. Accessed 

December 3, 2015. 

8http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/. 

9http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/pdfs/2012

ImplementationGuide.pdf. 

manufacturing plants, and any other 

stationary source that emits 25 or more 

tpy of lead or lead compounds 

measured as elemental lead. 40 CFR 

51.117(a)(1). In doing this analysis, EPA 

expects a state will take into 

consideration all sources of lead 

emissions within the nonattainment 

area that may be required to be 

controlled. 

In its SIP submittal, Pennsylvania 

identified one facility as having the 

potential to emit 0.5 tpy or more of lead 

in the North Reading Area. This facility, 

Exide Technologies, a secondary lead 

smelter, was included in PADEP’s 

modeling analysis. Yuasa, a lead-acid 

battery assembly plant located across 

the street from Exide, was also included 

in the modeling analysis. Lead 

emissions from nonpoint sources and 

mobile sources were also examined but 

found to be insignificant and while 

included in PADEP’s lead inventory, 

they were not included in the lead 

modeling demonstration due to their 

insignificance. 

In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W, PADEP completed an airdispersion modeling analysis for base 

year and future year emission 

inventories representing Exide and 

Yuasa, with reported lead emissions in 

2010 and projected emissions for 2015. 

The 2015 lead emissions were used in 

the modeled attainment demonstration 

to determine if projected lead emission 

rates would comply with the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. The 2015 lead emissions for 

Exide and Yuasa were determined by 

incorporating emission reductions from 

the implementation of the control 

measures set forth in the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Secondary Lead Smelting 

sources (Secondary Lead Smelting 

NESHAP) and from the stack-specific 

emission limits identified in the COAs 

between Pennsylvania and Exide and 

Yuasa.5 PADEP modeled seventy-seven 

lead emission sources for Exide and 

twenty-seven lead emission sources for 

Yuasa. Table 1 summarizes 2010 and 

2015 lead emissions compiled by the 

Commonwealth for both Exide and 

Yuasa. 

TABLE 1—NORTH READING LEAD

SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY (TPY) 

Lead source 

2010 lead 

emissions 

(actual) 

2015 lead 

emissions 

(projected) 

Exide ................. 1.0417 0.8991 

Yuasa ................ 0.1520 0.0850 

EPA has found that PADEP’s 

modeling demonstration was done in 

accordance with appendix W of 40 CFR 

part 51 and the modeling indicates that 

the Area will meet the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. 

Because the Area had monitored 

violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS in 

January 2013, before Exide began idling, 

the Area will not attain the NAAQS by 

December 2015 (the Area’s attainment 

date pursuant to section 192 of the 

CAA) based on ambient air quality over 

36 consecutive 3-month periods. 

However, there have been no monthly 

periods which have exceeded 0.15 mg/

m3 since March 2013.6 7 As such, the 3- 

month rolling averages from mid-year 

2013 and after have been below 0.15 mg/ 

m3 and the Area is on track to meet the 

2008 lead NAAQS. EPA and PADEP 

expect the 2008 lead NAAQS to be 

attained on the basis of 2014–2016 

ambient data as a result of 

implementation of PADEP’s August 12, 

2015 SIP revision. 

The projected 2015 emissions 

inventory used the maximum allowable 

lead emissions for both Exide and 

Yuasa. While Exide is currently idling, 

it has not installed all of the control 

measures necessary for the Secondary 

Lead Smelting NESHAP and its Plan 

Approval No. 06–05066I. However, 

pursuant to the COA between Exide and 

Pennsylvania, Exide cannot resume 

operations at the facility without 

demonstrating compliance with the 

control measures specified in the Plan 

Approval No. 06–05066I and in its COA. 

The future year maximum allowable 

lead emissions were developed from the 

control measures included in 

Pennsylvania’s attainment plan. 

However, even if Exide’s operations 

remain idled and controls not installed 

until it resumes operations, its potential 

lead emissions while idling will 

continue to be less than if it were 

operating under the NESHAP and COA 

controls and limits. 

EPA has evaluated the information 

provided in the Commonwealth’s 

attainment plan for the North Reading 

Area and concludes that the 

Commonwealth’s model attainment 

demonstration shows current lead 

control and emission limits will provide 

for attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS 

and the modeling meets the 

requirements in the CAA and its 

implementing regulations. 

More detailed information on the 

modeling system tools and documents 

used for the model attainment 

demonstration for the Area and EPA’s 

analysis of PADEP’s modeling can be 

found on the EPA Technology Transfer 

Network Support Center for Regulatory 

Atmospheric Modeling (SCRAM), in 

Pennsylvania’s August 12, 2015 

submittal, and in the EPA’s Modeling 

TSD which can be found in the docket 

for this proposed action (EPA–R03– 

OAR–2015–0773) at 

www.regulations.gov.8

3. RACM, RACT, and RFP Analysis 

According to section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA and 40 CFR 51.112, Demonstration 

of Adequacy, attainment plans shall 

provide for RACM and RACT and must 

demonstrate that the measures, rules, 

and regulations contained in it are 

adequate to provide for the timely 

attainment and maintenance of the 

national standard that it implements. 

In order to bring the North Reading 

Area into attainment for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS, Pennsylvania developed and 

modeled a control strategy for emissions 

from stacks at stationary sources and 

fugitive emissions from stationary 

sources from the two point sources of 

lead in the nonattainment area. Section 

IV of Pennsylvania’s attainment plan 

SIP revision details the control 

measures and emission limits for the 

North Reading Area. 

Pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA, attainment plans must provide for 

the implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable for each 

nonattainment area. Section 172(c)(1) of 

the CAA requires RACM and emission 

reductions from sources through RACT 

to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. 

In March 2012, EPA issued guidance 

titled, ‘‘Guide to Developing Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) for 

Controlling Lead Emissions’’ (RACM 

Guidance).9

In the final rule for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS, EPA recommended that at least 

all stationary sources emitting 0.5 tpy or 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1139 

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

11 Incremental reductions in lead emissions are 

not specified in Part D. 

12See 73 FR 67038 (November 12, 2008). 

more should undergo a RACT review.10

At the time Pennsylvania was 

developing its attainment plan SIP, 

Exide was the only stationary source 

within the North Reading Area that had 

the potential to emit 0.5 tpy or more of 

lead emissions. Therefore, Exide was 

the only point source within the North 

Reading Area which PADEP required to 

complete a RACT analysis. Exide 

performed a RACT analysis following 

EPA’s RACM guidance for controlling 

lead emissions which PADEP adopted 

in Plan Approval No. 06 05066I and 

proposes as RACT. 

Exide’s RACT analysis is located in 

appendix C–3 of Pennsylvania’s SIP 

revision. The control measures the 

PADEP implemented as RACT for Exide 

include a variety of control measures for 

the attainment plan which also address 

requirements in the Secondary Lead 

Smelting NESHAP. See 77 FR 556 

(January 5, 2012). 

A descriptive list of the measures 

which Exide must implement are 

included in table 9 of PADEP’s SIP 

revision. EPA’s review and analysis of 

Pennsylvania’s RACT proposal for Exide 

can be found in the Control Strategies, 

Reasonable Further Progress, and 

Contingency Measures TSD found in the 

docket for this proposed action (EPA– 

R03–OAR–2015–0773) at 

www.regulations.gov. 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Pennsylvania’s determination that the 

controls for lead emissions at Exide 

constitute RACM/RACT because PADEP 

conducted a reasonable analysis of 

controls that are technically and 

economically feasible and set the lowest 

achievable limits given those controls in 

accordance with the CAA requirements. 

By approving these control measures as 

RACM/RACT for Exide for purposes of 

the North Reading attainment plan, 

these control measures will become 

permanent and federally enforceable 

and will meet the requirements of the 

CAA and the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

In addition to the RACT analysis 

performed for Exide, Pennsylvania 

evaluated other sources and actions that 

could contribute meaningful emission 

reductions for RACM. In order to 

establish further enforceable controls as 

RACM to reduce lead emissions from 

lead point sources and fugitive lead 

sources, the Commonwealth developed 

and entered into two separate COAs, 

one COA with Exide and one COA with 

Yuasa. These COAs are located within 

the Pennsylvania attainment SIP 

revision in appendices C–1 and C–2 

and, upon EPA approval of 

Pennsylvania’s submittal, the portions 

of these COAs submitted for the SIP will 

become federally enforceable. 

According to PADEP, the COA 

between Exide and Pennsylvania 

specifies control measures that have 

been demonstrated with air dispersion 

modeling to reduce Exide’s lead 

emission contributions to the North 

Reading Area. Also in the COA are 

emission limits that are to be included 

in the Commonwealth’s SIP as limiting 

factors for lead emissions control from 

the lead emitting stacks at the Exide 

facility. The COA limits the total stack 

lead emissions for Exide to 0.02479667 

grams of lead per second (g/s). 

However, Exide has been in an idling 

state since February 2013, and as a 

result its lead emissions have been 

reduced dramatically. Exide submitted 

to PADEP a deactivation cover letter and 

Maintenance and Activation Plan on 

January 31, 2014, which indicated that 

only two lead-emitting sources remain 

active during the facility’s idling state. 

Source 131 Lime Storage Bin and 

Source 132 Plant Roadways continue to 

operate under the controls currently 

identified in the facility’s Title V 

operating permit. In 2014, under this 

idled state, Exide emitted a total of 

0.00004 tpy of lead, reflecting 

significant reductions from its prior lead 

emissions due to idling. 

Included in the COA between 

Pennsylvania and Exide is the 

requirement that Exide shall not resume 

operation of any portion of the facility 

until Exide has completed all of the 

modification work specified in Exide’s 

Plan Approval No. 06–05066I, which 

includes all requirements for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP. 

According to PADEP’s attainment 

plan, the COA between Yuasa and 

Pennsylvania specifies control measures 

that have been demonstrated with air 

dispersion modeling to reduce Yuasa’s 

contribution to lead emissions in the 

North Reading Area. The COA with 

Yuasa includes emission limits as well 

as requirements for stack testing, 

recordkeeping, monitoring, and progress 

reports. The COA limits the total stack 

lead emissions for Yuasa to 0.002279522 

g/s, to which Yuasa must adhere by 

December 31, 2015. Yuasa must 

demonstrate compliance with these 

limits, via reference method stack 

testing, by no later than June 30, 2016. 

Upon EPA final approval of the 

Pennsylvania lead attainment plan SIP 

revision for the North Reading Area, the 

limits and measures (in paragraph 3 for 

Exide and paragraphs 5 and 22 for 

Yuasa) within the COAs for Exide and 

Yuasa will become federally 

enforceable. EPA finds the measures 

contained in the COAs for Yuasa and 

Exide provide for implementation of all 

RACM as expeditiously as practicable to 

provide for attainment of the 2008 lead 

NAAQS in accordance with the 

requirements in section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA and its implementing regulations. 

Further details of EPA’s review of the 

RACM for Yuasa and Exide is provided 

in the Control Strategies, Reasonable 

Further Progress, and Contingency 

Measures TSD found in the docket for 

this proposed action (EPA–R03–OAR– 

2015–0773) at www.regulations.gov. 

In accordance with section 172(c)(2) 

of the CAA, attainment plans must also 

provide for RFP. Section 171(1) of the 

CAA defines RFP as annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant 

air pollutants as required by Title I, Part 

D of the CAA, or emission reductions 

that may reasonably be required by EPA 

to ensure attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS by the applicable date.11 EPA 

believes that RFP for lead 

nonattainment areas should be met by 

‘‘adherence to an ambitious compliance 

schedule’’ which is expected to 

periodically yield significant emission 

reductions, and as appropriate, linear 

progress.12

In its August 12, 2015 submittal, 

PADEP presented the COAs with Exide 

and Yuasa as providing for RFP. 

Overall, EPA finds that the control 

strategies for both Exide and Yuasa will 

provide for immediate reductions in 

lead emissions in the Area. Yuasa’s 

reductions will be implemented by 

December 2015. Although Exide’s 

reductions in lead from the control 

strategies in the COA have not been 

implemented yet, the plant has no lead 

smelting in operation and thus 

reductions in lead have already 

occurred. While the lead emissions 

reductions are not staggered or phased 

and therefore the ambient air quality 

concentrations are not expected to 

decrease over a long period of time, the 

lead reductions have already most 

notably occurred after Exide began its 

idling state in February 2013. Since 

shortly after Exide began idling, all of 

the North Reading Area’s ambient air 

monitors have been reporting 3-month 

rolling averages well below the 2008 

lead NAAQS. As ambient air quality 

concentrations have dropped, and have 

remained, below 0.15 mg/m 3, EPA 

believes that the Area has made RFP 

towards attainment. 

As provided in the COA between 

Exide and PADEP, if Exide seeks to 

resume its lead smelting operations at 

its facility, Exide would first need to 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1140 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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

14The COA between Pennsylvania and Yuasa 

includes an investigative study as a contingency 

measure for Yuasa. Appendix C–2 in PADEP’s 

August 12, 2015 submittal, which can be found in 

docket for this rulemaking action. 

15Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires permits 

for the construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources anywhere in a 

nonattainment area. The Pennsylvania SIP includes 

provisions consistent with the federal requirements, 

set forth at 40 CFR 51.165, for nonattainment new 

source review (NSR). Yuasa is considered a natural 

minor for purposes of nonattainment NSR for all 

pollutants, including lead. 

comply with all of the control measures 

necessary to comply with the Secondary 

Lead Smelting NESHAP as well as the 

control measures specified in the COA. 

Upon implementation of these control 

strategies, Pennsylvania’s modeling 

shows the ambient air quality 

concentrations should continue below 

the attainment level. Therefore, the Area 

should continue to attain the 2008 lead 

NAAQS whether Exide is operating or 

not and EPA thus finds that PADEP has 

met its RFP requirements for the North 

Reading Area. 

In summary, EPA finds the 

Pennsylvania attainment plan for North 

Reading Area meets CAA requirements 

in section 172 of the CAA for RACM/

RACT and RFP. Further EPA analysis 

and reasoning supporting EPA’s 

conclusion is available in the Control 

Strategies, Reasonable Further Progress, 

and Contingency Measures TSD found 

in the docket for this proposed action 

(EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0773) at 

www.regulations.gov. 

4. Contingency Measures 

As required by section 172(c)(9) of the 

CAA, an attainment demonstration must 

include contingency measures to be 

implemented if EPA determines that the 

nonattainment area in question has 

failed to make RFP or if the area fails to 

attain the NAAQS by the attainment 

date in December 2015. These measures 

must be fully adopted rules or control 

measures that can be implemented 

quickly and without additional EPA or 

state action if the area fails to meet RFP 

requirements or fails to meet it 

attainment date. Contingency measures 

should contain trigger mechanisms and 

an implementation schedule. In 

addition, these measures should not 

already be included in the SIP control 

strategy for attaining the standard.13

For the North Reading Area 

attainment plan, Pennsylvania’s SIP 

submission provides that if the air 

quality data for any 3-month rolling 

period after the implementation of the 

control measures identified in the COAs 

and Plan Approval No. 06–05066I 

exceed the 0.15 mg/m3 lead NAAQS, at 

least one of the contingency measures 

set forth in the COAs shall be 

implemented. 

The COA between Pennsylvania and 

Exide includes for contingency 

measures: Upgrade of existing fugitive 

dust control devices; increase existing 

lead emission stack heights; increased 

frequency of plant roadway surface 

cleaning; and an investigative study.14

PADEP will use two types of triggers, 

ambient air quality and emission events, 

for the implementation of contingency 

measures in the North Reading Area. 

Detailed information regarding the 

contingency measure actions and 

contingency measure triggers for Exide 

and Yuasa as well as EPA’s analysis of 

these contingency measures for 

compliance with CAA requirements, 

can be found in the Control Strategies, 

Reasonable Further Progress, and 

Contingency Measures TSD located in 

the docket for this proposed action 

(EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0773) at 

www.regulations.gov. 

EPA finds these contingency measure 

triggers and actions will help ensure 

compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS 

and meet the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) of the CAA to ensure 

continued attainment of the NAAQS if 

any events occur interfering with 

attainment. EPA proposes to approve 

Pennsylvania’s SIP revision as meeting 

section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA’s review of Pennsylvania’s 

August 12, 2015 SIP revision for the 

attainment plan for the North Reading 

Area satisfies the applicable 

requirements of the CAA identified in 

EPA’s final 2008 lead NAAQS rule and 

in section 172 of the CAA and its 

implementation regulations.15 EPA 

finds the attainment plan will result in 

attainment of the 0.15 mg/m3 standard 

for the 2008 lead NAAQS in the North 

Reading Area. EPA is proposing to 

approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision, 

which was submitted on August 12, 

2015, for the North Reading 

nonattainment area for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS and includes the attainment 

demonstration, base year emissions 

inventory, RACM/RACT and RFP 

analyses, and contingency measures. 

EPA also proposes to approve for 

inclusion in the Pennsylvania SIP 

paragraph 3 of the COA between Exide 

and PADEP, dated June 15, 2015 and 

paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA, dated 

June 12, 2012, between Yuasa and 

PADEP, as control measures for the 

attainment plan. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

regarding PADEP’s lead attainment plan 

for the North Reading Area, does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1141 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Lead. 

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

Dated: December 21, 2015. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–33303 Filed 1–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0783; FRL–9940–79– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New 

Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of 

Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, 

Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove severable portions of the 

February 6, 2012 Oklahoma State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

that are now inconsistent with federal 

laws due to intervening decisions by the 

United States Courts and EPA 

rulemaking. This submittal establishes 

Minor New Source Review permitting 

requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions and includes Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting provisions for sources that 

are classified as major, and, thus, 

required to obtain a PSD permit, based 

solely on their potential GHG emissions. 

The PSD permitting provisions also 

require a PSD permit for modifications 

of otherwise major sources because they 

increased only GHG above applicable 

levels. Additionally, we are proposing 

to disapprove severable portions of SIP 

submittals for the States of Arkansas, 

New Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing 

the EPA’s July 20, 2011 rule deferring 

PSD requirements for carbon dioxide 

(CO2) emissions from bioenergy and 

other biogenic sources (‘‘Biomass 

Deferral’’). We are proposing to 

disapprove the provisions adopting the 

Biomass Deferral because the deferral 

has expired, so the provisions are no 

longer consistent with federal laws. The 

EPA is proposing this disapproval under 

section 110 and part C of the Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 10, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2015–0783, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665– 

2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. For the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Adina Wiley, (214) 665–2115, 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or 

Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. Background 

A. The February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP 

Submittal 

On February 6, 2012, Oklahoma 

submitted revisions to the Oklahoma 

permitting programs for approval by the 

EPA into the Oklahoma SIP, including 

new Minor New Source Review (NSR) 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions at OAC 252:100–7–2.1 and 

revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program 

at OAC 252:100–8–31 (the definition of 

‘‘subject to regulation’’) to require PSD 

permits for sources solely because of 

GHG emissions. In addition, the 

submittal included many other updates 

to the Oklahoma SIP, unrelated to GHG 

permitting, which the EPA is addressing 

in separate actions. However, today’s 

action only addresses the provisions for 

GHG permitting that are inconsistent 

with federal laws. 

B. The November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP 

Submittal 

On November 6, 2012, Arkansas 

submitted revisions to the Arkansas 

Pollution Control and Ecology 

Commission’s Regulations, Chapters 2, 4 

and 9 for approval by the EPA into the 

Arkansas SIP. The EPA finalized our 

approval of the submitted revisions to 

the Arkansas PSD program at Regulation 

19, Chapter 9 that provide the State of 

Arkansas with the authority to issue 

PSD permits governing GHG emissions 

on April 2, 2013, at 63 FR 19596. The 

EPA finalized approval of the other 

parts of the submittal on March 4, 2015, 

with the exception of the severable 

components of the submittal at 

Regulation 19, Chapter 4 specific to the 

Arkansas Minor NSR program, and the 

severable portion of the definition of 

‘‘CO2 Equivalent Emissions’’ 

implementing the Biomass Deferral at 

Regulation 19, Chapter 2. Today’s action 

only addresses the severable portion of 

the definition of ‘‘CO2 Equivalent 

Emissions’’ at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 

submitted on November 6, 2012. The 

EPA will address the revisions to the 

Arkansas Minor NSR program at 

Regulation 19, Chapter 4 in a separate 

action, at a later date. 

C. The January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP 

Submittal 

On January 8, 2013, New Mexico 

submitted regulations specific to the 

New Mexico PSD permitting program 

for approval by the EPA into the New 

Mexico SIP. The EPA finalized approval 

of a portion of this submittal pertaining 

to plantwide applicability limits for 

GHGs on December 11, 2013, at 78 FR 

75253. The submittal also included 

revisions to the PSD permitting 

provisions that were adopted on January 

7, 2013, at 20.2.74 NMAC to defer the 

application of the PSD requirements to 

CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic stationary sources consistent 

with the Biomass Deferral. The revisions 

to 20.2.74 NMAC to adopt the Biomass 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS