24536 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 13, 2016. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09586 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0002; FRL–9945–46– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; 2011 Base Year 

Inventories for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

for the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, 

Lancaster, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, 

and Reading Areas, and the 

Pennsylvania Portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the 

2011 base year inventories for the 2008 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) for the 

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, 

Lancaster, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, and 

Reading nonattainment areas, and the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 

nonattainment area, submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a 

revision to the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). In the Rules 

and Regulations section of this issue of 

the Federal Register, EPA is approving 

Pennsylvania’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. The 

rationale for the approval is set forth in 

the direct final rule. More detailed 

descriptions of the state submittal and 

EPA’s evaluation are included in 

Technical Support Documents (TSD) 

prepared in support of this rulemaking 

action. Copies of the TSDs are available, 

upon request, from the EPA Regional 

Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document or are also available 

electronically within the Docket for this 

rulemaking action. 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 May 26, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0002 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

fernandez.cristina@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, 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. 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: 

Maria A. Pino, (215) 814–2181, or by 

email at pino.maria@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information regarding 

Pennsylvania’s 2011 base year 

inventories for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the Allentown-BethlehemEaston, Lancaster, Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley, and Reading areas, and the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 

area, 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 

issue of the Federal Register. 

Dated: April 8, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09590 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0323; FRL–9945–63– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality 

Designation; TN; Redesignation of the 

Sullivan County Lead Nonattainment 

Area to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 15, 2015, the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), submitted a 

request for the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate 

the Bristol, Tennessee 2008 lead 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Bristol Area’’ or the ‘‘Area’’) to 

attainment for the 2008 lead National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and an associated State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing a maintenance plan and a 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) determination for the Area. 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

Bristol Area is continuing to attain the 

2008 lead NAAQS; to approve the SIP 

revision containing the State’s 

maintenance plan for maintaining 

attainment of the 2008 lead standard 

and the State’s RACM determination; 

and to redesignate the Bristol Area to 

attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 26, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0323 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24537 

1Following enactment of the CAA Amendments 

of 1990, EPA promulgated its interpretation of the 

requirements for implementing the NAAQS in the 

general preamble for the Implementation of Title I 

of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (General 

Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). In 

1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 

171 and 172, and section 182 in the General 

Preamble, EPA set forth what has become known 

as its ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, ‘‘RFP, Attainment Demonstration, and 

Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard’’ (May 10, 1995). Since 1995, EPA 

has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data 

Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain 

attainment-related planning requirements for 

individual areas, based on a determination of 

attainment and that interpretation has been upheld 

by federal courts. For more information on the 

Clean Data Policy and its application to the 2008 

lead NAAQS, see EPA’s August 29, 2012, final 

action. See 77 FR 52232. 

2The date of the transmittal letter for Tennessee’s 

submittal is July 10, 2015. 

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. 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Lakeman may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9043 or via electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What are the actions EPA is 

proposing to take? 

EPA is proposing to take the following 

four separate but related actions: (1) To 

approve Tennessee’s RACM 

determination for the Bristol Area 

pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

172(c)(1) into the SIP; (2) to determine 

that the Area is continuing to attain the 

2008 lead NAAQS; (3) to approve 

Tennessee’s maintenance plan for 

maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS in 

the Area into the SIP; and (4) to 

redesignate the Area. The Bristol Area is 

comprised of the portion of Sullivan 

County, Tennessee, bounded by a 1.25 

kilometer radius surrounding the 

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 

coordinates 4042923 meters E., 386267 

meters N., Zone 17, which surrounds 

the lead acid-battery manufacturing and 

lead oxide production facility owned by 

Exide Technologies (Exide Facility). 

EPA’s 2008 lead nonattainment 

designation for the Area triggered an 

obligation for Tennessee to develop a 

nonattainment SIP revision addressing 

certain CAA requirements under title I, 

part D, subpart 1 (hereinafter ‘‘Subpart 

1’’) and to submit that SIP revision in 

accordance with the deadlines in title I, 

part D, subpart 5. Subpart 1 contains the 

general requirements for nonattainment 

areas for criteria pollutants, including 

requirements to develop a SIP that 

provides for the implementation of 

RACM, requires reasonable further 

progress (RFP), includes base-year and 

attainment-year emissions inventories, 

and provides for the implementation of 

contingency measures. On August 29, 

2012, EPA published a final 

determination that the Area had 

attained the 2008 lead NAAQS by the 

attainment date based on qualityassured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2007–2009 time 

period. See 77 FR 52232. In that 

determination and in accordance with 

EPA’s clean data policy, EPA suspended 

the requirements for the Area to submit 

a SIP revision addressing RACM, RFP 

plans, contingency measures, and 

certain other Subpart 1 requirements so 

long as the Area continues to attain the 

2008 lead NAAQS.1 Although these 

requirements are suspended, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the State’s 

Subpart 1 RACM determination meets 

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

the CAA and is proposing to approve 

this RACM determination into the SIP 

for the reasons discussed in Section 

V.A, below. 

EPA is also making the preliminarily 

determination that the Bristol Area is 

continuing to attain the 2008 lead 

NAAQS based on recent air quality data, 

and proposing to approve Tennessee’s 

maintenance plan for the Bristol Area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A (such approval being one of the 

CAA criteria for redesignation to 

attainment status). The maintenance 

plan is designed to keep the Bristol Area 

in attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS 

through 2025. As explained in Section 

V.B, below, EPA is also proposing to 

determine that attainment can be 

maintained through 2026. 

EPA is also proposing to determine 

that the Bristol Area has met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

Accordingly, in this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve a request to 

change the legal designation of the 

Bristol Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

In summary, today’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking is in response to 

Tennessee’s July 15, 2015, redesignation 

request and associated SIP submission 

that address the specific issues 

summarized above and the necessary 

elements described in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for 

redesignation of the Bristol Area to 

attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.2

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

On November 12, 2008, EPA 

promulgated a revised primary and 

secondary lead NAAQS of 0.15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3). 

See 73 FR 66964. Under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 

lead NAAQS are met when the 

maximum arithmetic 3-month mean 

concentration for a 3-year period, as 

determined in accordance with 

appendix R of 40 CFR part 50, is less 

than or equal to 0.15 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 

50.16. Ambient air quality monitoring 

data for the 3-year period must meet a 

data completeness requirement. 

EPA designated the Bristol Area as a 

nonattainment area for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS on November 22, 2010 

(effective December 31, 2010), using 

2007–2009 ambient air quality data. See 

75 FR 71033. This established an 

attainment date five years after the 

December 31, 2010, effective date for the 

2008 lead nonattainment designations 

pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A). 

Therefore, the Bristol Area’s attainment 

date is December 31, 2015. 

As discussed above, EPA determined 

that Tennessee had attained the 2008 

lead NAAQS prior to the attainment 

date and issued a Clean Data 

Determination on August 29, 2012. See 

77 FR 52232. Although a Clean Data 

Determination waives the requirements 

for an attainment demonstration, a state 

must submit, and EPA must approve, a 

redesignation request and a 

maintenance plan SIP revision before an 

area can be redesignated to attainment. 

III. What are the criteria for 

redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation providing that: (1) The 

Administrator determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) 

the Administrator has fully approved 

the applicable implementation plan for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

24538 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3The Court issued an amended decision on July 

14, 2015, revising some of the legal aspects of the 

Court’s analysis of the relevant statutory provisions 

(section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and section 172(c)(1)) but 

maintaining its prior holding that section 172(c)(1) 

‘‘unambiguously requires implementation of 

RACM/RACT prior to redesignation . . . even if 

those measures are not strictly necessary to 

demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 

See Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656, 670 (6th Cir. 

2015). 

4The states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Tennessee are located within the Sixth Circuit’s 

jurisdiction. 

5Pursuant to 40 CFR 56.5(b), the EPA Region 4 

Regional Administrator signed a memorandum on 

July 20, 2015, seeking concurrence from the 

Director of EPA’s Air Quality Policy Division 

(AQPD) in the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards to act inconsistent with EPA’s 

interpretation of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 

172(c)(1) when taking action on pending and future 

redesignation requests in Kentucky and Tennessee 

because the Region is bound by the Sixth Circuit’s 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA. The AQPD Director 

issued her concurrence on July 22, 2015. The July 

20, 2015, memorandum with AQPD concurrence is 

located in the docket for today’s proposed actions. 

6On September 3, 2015, the Sixth Circuit denied 

the petitions for rehearing en banc of this portion 

of its opinion that were filed by EPA, the state of 

Ohio, and industry groups from Ohio. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, Nos. 12–3169, 12–3182, 12–3420, Doc. 136– 

1 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 2015). On March 28, 2016, the 

United States Supreme Court denied Ohio’s petition 

for a writ of certiorari seeking review of Sierra Club 

v. EPA. 

7This interpretation was adopted in the General 

Preamble, see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), and has 

been upheld as applied to the Clean Data Policy, as 

well as to nonattainment SIP submissions. See 

NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

8Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743–745 (5th 

Cir. 2002). 

9Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162–163 (D.C. 

Cir. 2002); NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252 (D.C. 

Cir. 2009). 

the area under section 110(k); (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and (5) the state containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area for purposes of redesignation 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

On April 16, 1992, EPA provided 

guidance on redesignation in the 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), 

and supplemented this guidance on 

April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: 

1. ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’); 

2. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, October 28, 1992; and 

3. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part 

D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. 

IV. Why is EPA proposing these 

actions? 

On July 15, 2015, Tennessee 

requested that EPA redesignate the 

Bristol Area to attainment for the 2008 

lead NAAQS and submitted an 

associated SIP revision containing a 

maintenance plan and a Subpart 1 

RACM determination. EPA’s evaluation 

indicates that the RACM determination 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(1), the Bristol Area continues to 

attain the 2008 lead NAAQS, and the 

Bristol Area meets the requirements for 

redesignation as set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E)(i), including the 

maintenance plan requirements under 

section 175A of the CAA. As a result, 

EPA is proposing to take the four related 

actions summarized in section I of this 

notice. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

redesignation request and SIP revision? 

As stated above, in accordance with 

the CAA, EPA proposes in this action to: 

(1) Approve Tennessee’s Subpart 1 

RACM determination for the Bristol 

Area into the Tennessee SIP; (2) 

determine that the Area is continuing to 

attain the 2008 lead NAAQS; (3) 

approve the 2008 lead NAAQS 

maintenance plan for the Area into the 

SIP; and (4) redesignate the Area to 

attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

A. RACM Determination 

1. Relationship Between Subpart 1 

RACM and the Redesignation Criteria 

EPA does not believe that Subpart 1 

nonattainment planning requirements, 

including RACM, are ‘‘applicable’’ for 

purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) 

once an area is attaining the NAAQS 

and, therefore, does not believe that 

these planning requirements must be 

approved into the SIP before EPA can 

redesignate an area to attainment. See 

80 FR 16331 (March 27, 2015). 

However, on March 18, 2015, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit (Sixth Circuit) issued an opinion 

in Sierra Club v. EPA, 781 F.3d 299 (6th 

Cir. 2015), that is inconsistent with this 

longstanding interpretation regarding 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In its decision, 

the Court vacated EPA’s redesignation 

of the Indiana and Ohio portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area 

to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

because EPA had not yet approved 

Subpart 1 RACM for the Cincinnati Area 

into the Indiana and Ohio SIPs.3 The 

Court concluded that ‘‘a State seeking 

redesignation ‘shall provide for the 

implementation’ of RACM/RACT, even 

if those measures are not strictly 

necessary to demonstrate attainment 

with the PM2.5 NAAQS. . . . If a State 

has not done so, EPA cannot ‘fully 

approve[]’ the area’s SIP, and 

redesignation to attainment status is 

improper.’’ Sierra Club, 781 F.3d at 313. 

EPA is bound by the Sixth Circuit’s 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA within 

the Court’s jurisdiction.4 Although EPA 

continues to believe that Subpart 1 

RACM is not an applicable requirement 

under section 107(d)(3)(E) for an area 

that has already attained the 2008 lead 

NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s RACM determination into 

the SIP pursuant to the Court’s 

decision.5 6

2. Subpart 1 RACM Requirements 

Subpart 1 requires that each 

attainment plan ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from the 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology), and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ See CAA 

section 172(c)(1). EPA has consistently 

interpreted this provision to require 

only implementation of potential RACM 

measures that could advance 

attainment.7 Thus, where an area is 

already attaining the standard, no 

additional RACM measures are 

required. EPA’s interpretation that 

Subpart 1 requires only the 

implementation of RACM measures that 

would advance attainment was upheld 

by the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 8 and by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the DC 

Circuit.9

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24539 

10 Data from the state-run monitor can be used for 

comparison with the NAAQS because it is operated 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In addition to 

the State-run monitor, Exide Technologies operates 

three monitors in the Area. Although data from 

Exide’s monitors cannot be used for comparison 

with the NAAQS because compliance with the 

quality assurance provisions in 40 CFR part 58 has 

not been verified, Tennessee provided the 

measurements from these monitors as additional 

support information in the July 15, 2015, SIP 

submission. 

3. Proposed Action on RACM Based on 

Attainment of the NAAQS 

In its July 15, 2015, SIP revision, the 

State determined that no additional 

control measures are necessary in the 

Area to satisfy the section 172(c)(1) 

RACM requirement. EPA is proposing to 

approve this determination on the basis 

that the Area has attained the 2008 lead 

NAAQS and, therefore, no emission 

reduction measures are necessary to 

satisfy Subpart 1 RACM. As noted 

above, EPA has determined that the 

Area has attaining data for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS and met the standard by the 

December 31, 2015, attainment date. See 

77 FR 52232. Because the Area has 

attained the standard, there are no 

emissions controls that could advance 

the attainment date; thus, no emissions 

controls are necessary to satisfy Subpart 

1 RACM. 

4. Proposed Action on RACM Based on 

the State’s Analysis 

Additionally, Tennessee’s Subpart 1 

RACM determination is approvable on 

the basis that the SIP revision 

demonstrates that no additional 

reasonably available controls would 

have advanced the attainment date. In 

Tennessee’s RACM analysis, the State 

notes that the only source of lead 

emissions in the Area—the Exide 

Facility—permanently shut down in 

2014. In a letter to TDEC dated October 

30, 2014, Exide Technologies 

surrendered its major source air 

operating permit and stated that the lead 

oxide and lead acid-battery production 

process equipment, constituting the 

potential sources of air emissions 

covered by the air permit, had been 

decommissioned and largely removed 

from the site. The State also notes that, 

by July 16, 2008, the Exide Facility was 

operating fabric filters and wet 

scrubbers to comply with EPA’s 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart PPPPPP for lead-acid 

battery manufacturing facilities and that 

these MACT standards satisfied RACM 

requirements for controlling lead 

emissions. EPA has reviewed the RACM 

portion of Tennessee’s July 15, 2015, 

SIP revision and agrees with the State’s 

determination that it was not necessary 

to adopt or implement additional lead 

control measures in the Area. 

B. Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Demonstration 

The five redesignation criteria 

provided under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater 

detail for the Area in the following 

paragraphs of this section. 

Criteria (1)—The Bristol Area Has 

Attained the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS. See 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). For lead, an 

area may be considered to be attaining 

the 2008 lead NAAQS if it meets the 

2008 lead NAAQS, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR 50.16 and 

Appendix R of part 50, based on three 

complete, consecutive calendar years of 

quality-assured air quality monitoring 

data. To attain the NAAQS, the 

maximum arithmetic 3-month mean 

concentration for a 3-year period lead 

concentrations measured at each 

monitor within an area over each year 

must not exceed 0.15 mg/m3. Based on 

the data handling and reporting 

convention described in 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix R, the NAAQS are attained if 

the design value is 0.15 mg/m3 ppm or 

below. The data must be collected and 

quality-assured in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA 

Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors 

generally should have remained at the 

same location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. 

On August 29, 2012, EPA determined 

that the Bristol Area was attaining the 

2008 lead NAAQS based on certified 

2009–2011 data. See 77 FR 52232. In 

this proposed action, EPA is 

preliminarily determining that the 

Bristol Area has continued to attain the 

2008 lead NAAQS since 2011. EPA has 

reviewed quality-assured lead 

monitoring data, recorded in AQS, for 

2012–2014 from the state-run 

monitoring station in the Bristol Area as 

well as preliminary data from this 

station for 2015.10 The 3-year design 

values for 2008–2014 from this 

monitoring station are summarized in 

Table 1, below. 

TABLE 1—2008–2014 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BRISTOL AREA (μg/m3) 

Monitoring station 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 2012–2014 

47–163–3004 ....................................................................... 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 

The 3-year design value for 2012– 

2014 for the Bristol Area is 0.07 mg/m3

which meets the NAAQS. Although 

2012–2014 data are the most recent 

quality-assured and certified data, 

preliminary 2015 data indicate that the 

Area continues to attain the standard. In 

today’s proposed action, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the Bristol 

Area is continuing to attain the 2008 

lead NAAQS. If the Area does not 

continue to attain the standard before 

EPA finalizes the redesignation, EPA 

will not go forward with the 

redesignation. As discussed in more 

detail below, Tennessee has committed 

to continue monitoring ambient air lead 

concentrations in this Area in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 

Criteria (2)—Tennessee has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for 

the Bristol Area; and Criteria (5)— 

Tennessee Has Met all Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of Title I of the CA 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the state has met 

all applicable requirements under 

section 110 and part D of title I of the 

CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and 

that the state has a fully approved SIP 

under section 110(k) for the area (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes 

to find that Tennessee has met all 

applicable SIP requirements for the 

Bristol Area under section 110 of the 

CAA (general SIP requirements) for 

purposes of redesignation. Additionally, 

EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has 

met all applicable SIP requirements for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

of title I of the CAA in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and that the SIP 

is fully approved with respect to all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) contingent upon 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

24540 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

approval of Tennessee’s Subpart 1 

RACM determination for the Area. In 

making these proposed determinations, 

EPA ascertained which requirements are 

applicable to the Area and, if applicable, 

that they are fully approved under 

section 110(k). SIPs must be fully 

approved only with respect to 

requirements that were applicable prior 

to submittal of the complete 

redesignation request. 

a. The Bristol Area Has Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA 

General SIP requirements. General SIP 

elements and requirements are 

delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, 

part A of the CAA. These requirements 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: Submittal of a SIP that has 

been adopted by the state after 

reasonable public notice and hearing; 

provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)) and provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

(New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs); provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and provisions for public and 

local agency participation in planning 

and emission control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs 

contain certain measures to prevent 

sources in a state from significantly 

contributing to air quality problems in 

another state. To implement this 

provision, EPA has required certain 

states to establish programs to address 

the interstate transport of air pollutants. 

The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements 

for a state are not linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification in that 

state. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classifications are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, EPA does not 

believe that the CAA’s interstate 

transport requirements should be 

construed to be applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. 

In addition, EPA believes that other 

section 110 elements that are neither 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions nor linked with an area’s 

attainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The area will still be 

subject to these requirements after the 

area is redesignated. The section 110 

and part D requirements which are 

linked with a particular area’s 

designation and classification are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. This 

approach is consistent with EPA’s 

existing policy on applicability (i.e., for 

redesignations) of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements, as well 

as with section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 

7, 1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio, 

redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 

2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 

50399, October 19, 2001). Nonetheless, 

EPA has approved Tennessee’s SIP 

revision related to the section 110 

requirements for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

See 78 FR 36440 (June 18, 2013); and 78 

FR 67307 (November 12, 2013). 

Title I, Part D, applicable SIP 

requirements. Subpart 1 of part D, found 

in sections 172–176 of the CAA, sets 

forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. All areas that were 

designated nonattainment for the 2008 

lead NAAQS were designated under 

Subpart 1 of the CAA in accordance 

with the deadlines in subpart 5. For 

purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

part D, Subpart 1 SIP requirements for 

all nonattainment areas are contained in 

sections 172(c)(1)–(9) and in section 

176. A thorough discussion of the 

requirements contained in sections 172 

and 176 can be found in the General 

Preamble for Implementation of title I. 

See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). 

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements. 

Section 172 requires states with 

nonattainment areas to submit 

attainment plans providing for timely 

attainment and meeting a variety of 

other requirements. However, EPA’s 

final determination that the Area is 

attaining the lead standard suspended 

Tennessee’s obligation to submit most of 

the attainment planning requirements 

that would otherwise apply. 

EPA’s longstanding interpretation of 

the nonattainment planning 

requirements of section 172 is that once 

an area is attaining the NAAQS, those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) 

and therefore need not be approved into 

the SIP before EPA can redesignate the 

area. In the 1992 General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth 

its interpretation of applicable 

requirements for purposes of evaluating 

redesignation requests when an area is 

attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 

13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that 

the requirements for reasonable further 

progress (RFP) and other measures 

designed to provide for attainment do 

not apply in evaluating redesignation 

requests because those nonattainment 

planning requirements ‘‘have no 

meaning’’ for an area that has already 

attained the standard. Id. This 

interpretation was also set forth in the 

Calcagni Memorandum. EPA’s 

understanding of section 172 also forms 

the basis of its Clean Data Policy, which 

suspends a state’s obligation to submit 

most of the attainment planning 

requirements that would otherwise 

apply, including an attainment 

demonstration and planning SIPs to 

provide for RFP, RACM, and 

contingency measures under section 

172(c)(9). However, as discussed above, 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s RACM determination into 

the SIP in response to the Sixth Circuit’s 

decision that section 172(c)(1) RACM is 

an applicable requirement under 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and must be approved 

into the SIP before EPA can redesignate 

an area that is subject to section 

172(c)(1) requirements. 

Because attainment has been reached 

in the Area, no additional measures are 

needed to provide for attainment. 

Therefore, the section 172(c)(2) 

requirement that nonattainment plans 

contain provisions promoting 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment is not relevant for purposes 

of redesignation because EPA has 

determined that the Area has monitored 

attainment of the NAAQS. In addition, 

because the Area has attained the 

standard and is no longer subject to a 

RFP requirement, the requirement to 

submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency 

measures is not applicable for purposes 

of redesignation. Section 172(c)(6) 

requires the SIP to contain control 

measures necessary to provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS. Because 

attainment has been reached, no 

additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

for approval a comprehensive, accurate, 

and current inventory of actual 

emissions. On January 9, 2014, EPA 

approved Tennessee’s 2010 base-year 

emissions inventory for the Area. See 79 

FR 1593. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24541 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources to be 

allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) 

requires source permits for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area. 

Tennessee currently has a fullyapproved part D NSR program in place. 

However, EPA has determined that, 

since PSD requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a NSR program be approved prior 

to redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ 

Tennessee has demonstrated that the 

Area will be able to maintain the 

NAAQS without part D NSR in effect, 

and therefore Tennessee need not have 

fully approved part D NSR programs 

prior to approval of the redesignation 

request. Tennessee’s PSD program will 

become effective in the Area upon 

redesignation to attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA 

believes that the Tennessee SIP meets 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Section 172(c)(8) allows a state to use 

equivalent modeling, emission 

inventory, and planning procedures if 

such use is requested by the state and 

approved by EPA. Tennessee has not 

requested the use of equivalent 

techniques under section 172(c)(8). 

Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements. Section 176(c) of the 

CAA requires states to establish criteria 

and procedures to ensure that federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects that are developed, funded, or 

approved under title 23 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal 

Transit Act (transportation conformity) 

as well as to all other federally 

supported or funded projects (general 

conformity). State transportation 

conformity SIP revisions must be 

consistent with Federal conformity 

regulations relating to consultation, 

enforcement, and enforceability that 

EPA promulgated pursuant to its 

authority under the CAA. In light of the 

elimination of lead additives in 

gasoline, transportation conformity does 

not apply to the lead NAAQS. See 73 FR 

66964. 

b. The Bristol Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

Tennessee SIP for the Bristol Area under 

section 110(k) of the CAA for all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation with the exception of the 

Subpart 1 RACM requirements. EPA 

may rely on prior SIP approvals in 

approving a redesignation request (see 

Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; 

Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth 

Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989– 

90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) 

plus any additional measures it may 

approve in conjunction with a 

redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 

(May 12, 2003) and citations therein. 

Following passage of the CAA of 1970, 

Tennessee has adopted and submitted, 

and EPA has fully approved at various 

times, provisions addressing various SIP 

elements applicable for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS in the Bristol Area (e.g., 78 FR 

36440 (June 18, 2013); and 78 FR 67307 

(November 12, 2013)). In today’s 

proposed action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the State’s Subpart 1 RACM 

determination for the Area into the 

Tennessee SIP. 

As indicated above, EPA believes that 

the section 110 elements that are neither 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions nor linked to an area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. If EPA finalizes approval 

of the State’s Subpart 1 RACM 

determination, EPA will have approved 

all part D requirements applicable for 

purposes of this redesignation pursuant 

to the Sixth Circuit’s decision. 

Criteria (3)—The Air Quality 

Improvement in the Bristol Area Is Due 

to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the air quality 

improvement in the area is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, applicable 

Federal air pollution control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions (CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily 

determined that Tennessee has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the Bristol Area 

is due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions. 

When EPA designated the Bristol 

Area as a nonattainment for the lead 

NAAQS, EPA determined that 

operations at the Exide Facility were the 

primary cause of the 2008 lead NAAQS 

violation in the Area. The Facility 

installed fabric filters and wet scrubbing 

systems to meet federal MACT 

standards for lead-acid battery 

manufacturing facilities by July 16, 

2008. In an October 30, 2014, letter to 

TDEC, Exide Technologies surrendered 

its air permits for the Facility and noted 

that the lead oxide and lead acid-battery 

production process equipment had been 

decommissioned and largely removed 

from the site. See Appendix F of the 

State’s submittal. EPA considers the 

emissions reductions from the Exide 

Facility to be permanent and 

enforceable. 

Criteria (4)—The Tennessee Portion of 

the Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has a 

fully approved maintenance plan 

pursuant to section 175A of the CAA. 

See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). In 

conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Tennessee portion of the 

Bristol Area to attainment for the 2008 

lead NAAQS, TDEC submitted a SIP 

revision to provide for maintenance of 

the 2008 lead NAAQS for at least 10 

years after the effective date of 

redesignation to attainment. EPA 

believes that this maintenance plan 

meets the requirements for approval 

under section 175A of the CAA. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the state must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

demonstrating that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain such 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

24542 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

11For 2015 and 2025, Tennessee included 

fugitive emissions of 0.01 tpy and area source 

emissions of 0.01 tpy (a conservative approach given that the State calculated area source 

emissions of 0.0001 tpy). 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future 2008 lead violations. The 

Calcagni Memorandum provides further 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan, explaining that a 

maintenance plan should address five 

requirements: The attainment emissions 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring, verification of continued 

attainment, and a contingency plan. As 

is discussed more fully below, EPA has 

preliminarily determined that 

Tennessee’s maintenance plan includes 

all the necessary components and is 

thus proposing to approve it as a 

revision to the Tennessee SIP. 

b. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

As noted earlier, EPA previously 

determined that the Bristol Area 

attained the 2008 lead NAAQS based on 

monitoring data for the 3-year period 

from 2009–2011. Today, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the Bristol 

Area continues to attain the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. In its maintenance plan, the 

State selected 2010 as the base year and 

2012 as the attainment emission 

inventory year. The attainment 

inventory identifies a level of emissions 

in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 

2008 lead NAAQS. Tennessee began 

development of the attainment 

inventory by first generating a baseline 

emissions inventory for the Bristol Area. 

As noted above, the year 2010 was 

chosen as the base year for developing 

a comprehensive emissions inventory 

for lead. To evaluate maintenance 

through 2025, Tennessee prepared 

emissions projections for the years 2015 

and 2025. 

Descriptions of how Tennessee 

developed the emissions inventory are 

located in the Appendix D of the July 

15, 2015, submittal, which can be found 

in the docket for this action. The Exide 

Facility is the only point source of lead 

emissions within the Area. The State 

calculated lead emissions from Exide 

Facility operations using data collected 

through stack tests and the application 

of emissions factors. Tennessee obtained 

the area source category inventory from 

EPA’s 2011 NEI ver.2 database. To 

estimate lead emissions from area 

sources in the Bristol Area, Tennessee 

apportioned the county-level lead 

emissions from area sources based on 

population and determined that lead 

emissions from area sources total 

approximately 0.0001 tpy in the Area. 

The State assumed that these area 

source emissions remain constant 

throughout the maintenance period (i.e., 

2010 through 2025). Tennessee 

determined that there are no sources of 

lead emissions in the Area from nonroad and on-road sources based on 

EPA’s 2008 NEI ver.2 database. Table 2, 

below, identifies base year emissions, 

attainment year emissions and projected 

emissions for 2010, 2012, 2015, and 

2025. 

c. Maintenance Demonstration 

The maintenance plan associated with 

the redesignation request includes a 

maintenance demonstration that: 

(i) Shows compliance with and 

maintenance of the 2008 lead NAAQS 

by providing information to support the 

demonstration that current and future 

emissions of lead remain at or below 

2012 emissions levels. 

(ii) Uses 2012 as the attainment year 

and includes future emissions inventory 

projections for 2015 and 2025. 

(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year’’ at least 10 

years after the time necessary for EPA to 

review and approve the maintenance 

plan. 

(iv) Provides actual (2010 and 2012) 

and projected emissions inventories, in 

tons per year (tpy), for the Bristol Area, 

as shown in Table 2, below. 

TABLE 2—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL LEAD EMISSIONS (tpy) FOR THE BRISTOL AREA11

2010 Base year 2012 Attainment year 2015 Interim year 2025 Maintenance year 

0.7 0.5 0.02 0.02 

In situations where local emissions 

are the primary contributor to 

nonattainment, such as the Bristol Area, 

if the future projected emissions in the 

nonattainment area remain at or below 

the baseline emissions in the 

nonattainment area, then the related 

ambient air quality standards should not 

be exceeded in the future. Tennessee 

has projected emissions as described 

previously and determined that 

emissions in the Tennessee portion of 

the Bristol Area will remain below those 

in the attainment year inventory for the 

duration of the maintenance plan. 

While the maintenance plan projects 

maintenance of the 2008 lead NAAQS 

through 2025, EPA believes that the 

Bristol Area will continue to maintain 

the standard at least through the year 

2026 because the only point source of 

lead emissions in the Area has 

permanently shut down; the design 

values for the Area beginning in 2008– 

2010 have been well below the NAAQS 

standard of 0.15 mg/m3; and lead 

emissions from all source categories are 

projected to be approximately one order 

of magnitude below the NAAQS in 

2025. 

d. Monitoring Network 

There are currently four monitors 

measuring ambient air lead 

concentrations in the Bristol Area. 

However, as noted above, only the 

monitor operated by TDEC meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 

Therefore, only data from this monitor 

can be used to evaluate compliance with 

the NAAQS. TDEC has committed to 

continue operation of its lead monitor in 

the Bristol Area in compliance with 40 

CFR part 58 and has thus addressed the 

requirement for monitoring. EPA 

approved Tennessee’s monitoring plan 

on October 26, 2015. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Tennessee has the legal authority to 

enforce and implement the maintenance 

plan for the Area. This includes the 

authority to adopt, implement, and 

enforce any subsequent emissions 

control contingency measures 

determined to be necessary to correct 

future lead attainment problems. 

Large stationary sources are required 

to submit an emissions inventory 

annually to TDEC. TDEC prepares a new 

periodic inventory for all lead sources 

every three years. This lead inventory 

will be prepared for future years as 

necessary to comply with the inventory 

reporting requirements established in 

the CFR. Emissions information will be 

compared to the 2010 base year and the 

2025 projected maintenance year 

inventory to assess emission trends, as 

necessary, and to assure continued 

compliance with the lead standard. 

Additionally, under the Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements (AERR), TDEC 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24543 

is required to develop a comprehensive, 

annual, statewide emissions inventory 

every three years that is due twelve to 

eighteen months after the completion of 

the inventory year. The AERR inventory 

years match the base year and final year 

of the inventory for the maintenance 

plan, and are within one or two years 

of the interim inventory years of the 

maintenance plan. Therefore, TDEC 

commits to compare the AERR 

inventories as they are developed with 

the 2010 and 2025 inventories in the 

maintenance plan to evaluate 

compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS 

in this Area. 

f. Contingency Measures in the 

Maintenance Plan 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

a maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to assure that the state will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 

The maintenance plan should identify 

the contingency measures to be adopted, 

a schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation, and a time limit 

for action by the state. A state should 

also identify specific indicators to be 

used to determine when the 

contingency measures need to be 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that a state 

will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment 

in accordance with section 175A(d). 

In the July 15, 2015, submittal, 

Tennessee affirms that all programs 

instituted by the State and EPA will 

remain enforceable. The contingency 

plan included in the submittal includes 

a triggering mechanism to determine 

when contingency measures are needed 

and a process of developing and 

implementing appropriate control 

measures. A warning level response is 

triggered when a 3-month rolling 

average lead concentration of 0.135 mg/ 

m3 (i.e., 90 percent of the standard) 

occurs within the Area. A warning level 

response will consist of a study to 

determine whether the lead value 

indicates a trend toward higher lead 

values. The study will evaluate whether 

the trend, if any, is likely to continue 

and, if so, what control measures are 

necessary to reverse the trend taking 

into consideration ease and timing for 

implementation as well as economic 

and social considerations. 

Implementation of necessary controls in 

response to a warning level response 

trigger will take place as expeditiously 

as possible, but in no event later than 12 

months from the conclusion of the most 

recent calendar year. 

An action level response is triggered 

whenever the 3-month rolling average 

concentration of 0.143 mg/m3 (i.e., 95 

percent of the standard) or greater 

occurs within the Area. A violation of 

the standard (any 3-month rolling 

average over a 36-month rolling average 

period (3-calendar years plus the 

preceding 2 months) exceeds 0.15 mg/

m3) shall also prompt an action level 

response. In the event that the action 

level is triggered and is not found to be 

due to an exceptional event, 

malfunction, or noncompliance with a 

permit condition or rule requirement, 

TDEC in conjunction with the entity(ies) 

believed to be responsible for the 

exceedance will evaluate additional 

control measures needed to assure 

future attainment of the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. Measures that can be 

implemented in a short time will be 

selected in order to be in place within 

18 months from the close of the 

calendar year that prompted the action 

level. TDEC will also consider the 

action level trigger and determine if 

additional, significant new regulations 

not currently included as part of the 

maintenance provisions will be 

implemented in a timely manner. 

At least one of the following 

contingency measures will be adopted 

and implemented upon a triggering 

event: 

• Improvements in applicable 

permitted control devices; 

• Addition of secondary control 

devices or improvements in 

housekeeping and maintenance; and 

• Other measures based on the cause 

of the elevated lead concentrations. 

Any contingency measure 

implemented for an operating permitted 

source will require a compliance plan 

and expeditious compliance from the 

entity(ies) involved. 

Based on the shutdown of the Exide 

Facility and the surrender of its 

operating permit, TDEC believes that the 

2008 lead NAAQS can be achieved on 

a consistent basis in the Area. Because 

the Exide Facility has shut down, any 

possible exceedances of the lead 

NAAQS during any three month period 

after December 31, 2015 (the attainment 

date), are likely to be a result of fugitive 

emissions. The contingency measures 

discussed below will immediately take 

effect to offset any increase in air quality 

concentrations that are expected to 

result from emission increases due to 

the likelihood of fugitive soil dust 

disturbance and/or entrainment from 

the Exide Facility. 

In the event of an exceedance, Exide 

will be required to conduct a twelve 

minute EPA Method 9 visible emissions 

reading on each lead source outlet by a 

certified reader every day, as well as a 

dye check on every filtration system that 

was controlling a lead source. These 

control measures will help to determine 

and detect the source of fugitive 

emissions so that the exceedances can 

be addressed immediately. Other 

contingency measures include 

restricting traffic to and from the facility 

and the daily application of wet 

suppression using a sprinkler frequency 

of 5 minutes every 30 minutes during 

daylight hours and 5 minutes every 60 

minutes during nighttime hours twentyfour hours a day everyday which will 

serve to reduce fugitive dust emissions. 

Each of the contingency measures will 

continue for at least 90 days and remain 

in place until such time as TDEC has 

determined that they are no longer 

needed. In addition to the identified 

contingency measures, if an exceedance 

of the NAAQS occurs during any three 

month period after December 31, 2015 

(the attainment date), within 120 days, 

the facility will submit an investigative 

study identifying the source(s) 

contributing to the exceedance. Exide 

will also develop and prepare a strategy 

to eliminate the likelihood of another 

exceedance. The 120-day review period 

will consist of a 30-day evaluation 

period immediately following a 

violation and then up to 90-day 

consultation period with the facility to 

determine the best course of action. 

EPA has preliminarily concluded that 

the maintenance plan adequately 

addresses the five basic components of 

a maintenance plan: The attainment 

emissions inventory, maintenance 

demonstration, monitoring, verification 

of continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to determine that the 

maintenance plan for the Area meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA and proposes to incorporate the 

maintenance plan into the Tennessee 

SIP. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

EPA is taking four separate but related 

actions regarding the redesignation 

request and associated SIP revision for 

the Bristol Area. 

First, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the State’s Subpart 1 RACM 

determination for the Area meets the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) 

and to incorporate this RACM 

determination into the SIP. 

Second, EPA is proposing to 

determine, based upon review of 

quality-assured and certified ambient 

monitoring data for the 2012–2014 

period and upon review of preliminary 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

24544 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

data in AQS for 2015, that the Area 

continues to attain the 2008 lead 

NAAQS following EPA’s determination 

of attainment. 

Third, EPA proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan for the Area and to 

incorporate it into the SIP. As described 

above, the maintenance plan 

demonstrates that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 2008 lead 

NAAQS through 2026. 

Fourth, EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s request for redesignation of 

the Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS 

contingent upon final action approving 

the State’s Subpart 1 RACM 

determination into the SIP. If finalized, 

approval of the redesignation request for 

the Bristol Area would change the 

official designation the portion of 

Sullivan County bounded by a 1.25 

kilometer radius surrounding the UTM 

coordinates 4042923 meters E, 386267 

meters N, Zone 17, which surrounds the 

Exide Facility, as found at 40 CFR part 

81, from nonattainment to attainment 

for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 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, these proposed 

actions merely approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and do not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions 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); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• are 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.); 

• do 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); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are 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 

• will not have disproportionate 

human health or environmental effects 

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 as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

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

Dated: April 14, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09600 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

45 CFR Part 1627 

Subgrants and Membership Fees or 

Dues 

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. 

ACTION: Further notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Legal Services 

Corporation (LSC or Corporation) 

proposes to revise its regulations 

governing subgrants to third parties. 

LSC published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) on April 20, 2015, 

80 FR 21692. In response to the NPRM, 

LSC received comments from five 

organizations. The commenters 

requested that LSC reconsider some of 

the proposed changes to the regulations. 

LSC has considered the comments and 

now proposes additional revisions to 

the rules. In this Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), LSC 

seeks comments on five proposed 

revisions to the NPRM. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

June 10, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

Email: SubgrantRulemaking@lsc.gov. 

Include ‘‘Part 1627 FNPRM’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

Fax: (202) 337–6519, ATTN: Part 1627 

FNPRM. 

Mail: Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant 

General Counsel, Legal Services 

Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20007, ATTN: Part 

1627 FNPRM. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Stefanie K. 

Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal 

Services Corporation, 3333 K Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20007, ATTN: 

Part 1627 FNPRM. 

Instructions: Electronic submissions 

are preferred via email with attachments 

in Acrobat PDF format. LSC will not 

consider written comments received 

after the end of the comment period. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General 

Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 

3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 

20007, (202) 295–1563 (phone), (202) 

337–6519 (fax), sdavis@lsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

LSC provided a more complete 

history of this rulemaking in the April 

20, 2015 NPRM. 80 FR 21692, Apr. 20, 

2015. In brief, LSC initiated this 

rulemaking to address an issue 

identified by LSC’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) through an audit of the 

Corporation’s Technology Initiative 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL