Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10181 

submittal. If EPA disapproves the new 

submittal, the conditionally approved 

infrastructure SIP elements for all 

affected pollutants will be disapproved. 

In addition, a final disapproval triggers 

the Federal Implementation Plan 

requirement under section 110(c). If 

EPA approves the new submittal, the 

PSD program and relevant infrastructure 

SIP elements will be fully approved and 

replace the conditionally approved 

program in the SIP. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register, or by submitting comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier following the 

directions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this Federal Register. 

VI. 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 

several Rhode Island statutes referenced 

in Section V above. EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed 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 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). 

In addition, 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). 

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 19, 2016. 

Deborah A. Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04405 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0006; FRL–9942–89– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia which 

revises Virginia’s Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) air 

quality preconstruction permitting 

program to be consistent with the 

federal PSD regulations regarding the 

use of the significant monitoring 

concentration (SMC) and significant 

impact levels (SILs) for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) emissions. In the Final 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is approving the State’s SIP 

submittal as a direct final rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by March 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0006 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

johansen.amy@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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10182 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Himanshu Vyas, (215) 814–2112, or by 

email at vyas.himanshu@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

For further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. 

Dated: February 12, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04240 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0835; FRL 9942–77– 

Region 7] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Missouri State Implementation 

Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to grant full 

approval of Missouri’s attainment 

demonstration State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the 

Exide Technologies Canon Hollow 

facility in Forest City, Missouri, 

received by EPA on October 20, 2014. 

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 (CAA) 

identified in EPA’s Final Rule published 

on October 15, 2008 in the Federal 

Register, and will bring the violating 

area into attainment of the 0.15 

microgram per cubic meter (ug/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–2015–0835, 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 

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 electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region 

7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, 

Kansas 66219. Please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Doolan, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Missouri 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 Compliance Plan 

for the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

A. Facility Description 

B. Model Selection, Meteorological and 

Emissions Inventory Input Data 

C. Control Strategy 

D. Modeling Results 

E. Attainment Demonstration 

F. Contingency Measures 

G. Enforceability 

VI. Proposed Action 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

In this document, EPA is addressing 

Missouri’s request to approve a revision 

to its SIP for violations of the lead 

NAAQS near the Exide Technologies— 

Canon Hollow facility in Holt County, 

Missouri. 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 

compliance with the 0.15 microgram per 

cubic meter (ug/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 CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to grant full 

approval of Missouri’s request for a SIP 

revision to bring the area near the ExideCanon Hollow facility into compliance 

with 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 ug/m3 in air, 

measured as a rolling three-month 

average. (73 FR 66964). 

The state historically conducted 

ambient air monitoring for lead at the 

Exide Canon Hollow facility (formerly 

known as Schuylkill Metals) under the 

1978 lead NAAQS from 1990 to 2000. 

Ambient air monitoring data from this 

time period indicated that the facility 

violated the 1978 standard one calendar 

quarter in 1994. 

When the 2008 lead NAAQS was 

promulgated, the rulemaking required 

states to conduct ambient air monitoring 

near facilities that reported lead 

emissions of 1.0 tons per year (tpy) or 

greater. On December 27, 2010, EPA 

promulgated the Revisions to Lead 

Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS