Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 54835 

for construction, modification, and 

operation. 

b. EPA Analysis: Final approval of 

Wyoming’s title V operating permit 

program became effective April 23, 1999 

(64 FR 8523, Feb. 22, 1990). Interim 

approval of the program became 

effective February 21, 1995 (60 FR 4563, 

January 19, 1995). As discussed in a 

previous direct final rule (which 

received comments) for interim 

approval of the title V program (59 FR 

48802, September 23, 1994), the State 

demonstrated that the fees collected 

were sufficient to administer the 

program. In addition, WAQSR chapter 

6, section 2, paragraph (o) requires 

applicants for construction permits to 

pay the costs for DEQ to review and act 

on the permit applications. Wyoming’s 

submission meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

14. Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities: Section 

110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide 

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

a. Wyoming’s response to this 

requirement: The State’s submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure requirements cite a nonregulatory document (e.g., 

Intergovernmental Cooperation), 

approved by EPA on May 3, 1972 (37 FR 

10842). 

b. EPA Analysis: Wyoming’s submittal 

meets the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VI. What action is EPA proposing? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the following infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) with respect to 

minor NSR and PSD requirements, 

(D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M). EPA is also proposing to 

approve revisions to Chapter 6, Section 

4, as submitted on May 24, 2012, which 

incorporate the requirements of the 

2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule; specifically, 

revisions to: Chapter 6, Section 4 (a) 

Definitions of ‘‘Baseline area’’, ‘‘Major 

source baseline date’’, and ‘‘Minor 

source baseline date’’; Chapter 6, 

Section 4 (b)(i)(A)(I) Table 1 and Table 

1 (1), Chapter 6, Section 4 (b)(J)(v)(viii), 

and Section 14. EPA proposes to 

disapprove the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

infrastructure element, related to CAA 

128, state boards, for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, in this action, 

EPA is taking no action on 

infrastructure elements (D)(i) for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action 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 rule 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 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated August 28, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21613 Filed 9–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0173; FRL–9900–62– 

Region 4] 

Air Quality Implementation Plan; 

Alabama; Attainment Plan for the Troy 

Area 2008 Lead Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision, submitted by the State of 

Alabama through the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), to EPA on 

November 9, 2012, for the purpose of 

providing for attainment of the 2008 

Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) in the Troy 2008 

Lead nonattainment area (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Troy Area’’ or 

‘‘Area’’). The Troy Area is comprised of 

a portion of Pike County in Alabama 

surrounding the Sanders Lead Company 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Sanders 

Lead’’). EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s November 9, 2012 SIP 

submittal regarding the attainment plan 

based on Alabama’s attainment 

demonstration for the Troy Area. The 

attainment plan includes the base year 

emissions inventory requirements, an 

analysis of the reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) and 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) requirements, reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plan, modeling 

demonstration of lead attainment and 

contingency measures for the Troy Area. 

This action is being taken in accordance 

with Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

EPA’s guidance related to lead 

attainment planning. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
54836 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 7, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R04–OAR–2013–0173 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0173, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0173. 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri 

Farngalo of the Regulatory Development 

Section, in the Air Planning Branch, 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Farngalo may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9152, or via electronic mail at 

farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action Is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What is included in Alabama’s attainment 

plan submittal for the Troy area? 

IV. What Is EPA’s analysis of Alabama’s 

submittal for the Troy area? 

1. Pollutants Addressed 

2. Emissions Inventory Requirements 

3. Modeling 

4. RACM/RACT 

5. RFP Plan 

6. Contingency Measures 

7. Attainment Date 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s SIP submittal for the Troy 

Area, as submitted through ADEM to 

EPA on November 9, 2012, for the 

purpose of demonstrating attainment of 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Alabama’s lead 

attainment plan for the Troy Area 

includes a base year emissions 

inventory, a modeling demonstration of 

lead attainment, an analysis of RACM/ 

RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency 

measures. 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that Alabama’s attainment plan for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS for the Troy Area 

meets the applicable requirements of the 

CAA and the ‘‘SIP Toolkit—Attainment 

Demonstrations and Air Quality 

Modeling,’’ hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘SIP Toolkit,’’ dated April 12, 2012, 

located at http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/

kitmodel.html. Thus, EPA is proposing 

to approve Alabama’s attainment plan 

for the Troy Area. EPA’s analysis for 

this proposed action is discussed in 

Section IV of this proposed rulemaking. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), 

EPA revised the Lead NAAQS, lowering 

the level from 1.5 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) to 0.15 mg/m3 calculated 

over a three-month rolling average. EPA 

established the NAAQS based on 

significant evidence and numerous 

health studies demonstrating that 

serious health effects are associated 

with exposures to lead emissions. 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the 

CAA to designate areas throughout the 

United States as attaining or not 

attaining the NAAQS; this designation 

process is described in section 107(d)(1) 

of the CAA. On November 22, 2010 (75 

FR 71033), EPA promulgated initial air 

quality designations for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, which became effective on 

December 31, 2010, based on air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 

2007–2009, where there was sufficient 

data to support a nonattainment 

designation. Designations for all 

remaining areas were completed on 

November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72097), 

which became effective on December 

31, 2011, based on air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 

2008–2010. 

Effective December 31, 2010, the Troy 

Area was designated as nonattainment 

for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. This 

designation triggered a requirement for 

Alabama to submit a SIP revision with 

a plan for how the Area would attain the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than December 

31, 2015. ADEM submitted its SIP 

submittal for the Troy Area on 

November 9, 2012, which included the 

base year emissions inventory and the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 54837 

1See EPA document titled ‘‘Addendum to the 

2008 Lead NAAQS Implementation Questions and 

Answers’’ dated August 10, 2012, included in EPA’s 

SIP Toolkit located at http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/ 

kitmodel.html. 

2Area sources are only required to be submitted 

for the NEI every three years, in accordance with 

the Air Emissions Reporting Rule and the most 

recent release is in the 2008 NEI version 2. 

attainment demonstration. EPA’s 

analysis of the submitted attainment 

demonstration includes a review of the 

pollutant addressed, emissions 

inventory requirements, modeling, 

RACT and RACM requirements, RFP 

plan, and contingency measures for the 

Troy Area. 

III. What is included in Alabama’s 

attainment plan submittal for the Troy 

area? 

In accordance with section 172(c) of 

the CAA and the SIP Toolkit, the 

Alabama attainment plan for the Troy 

Area includes: (1) An emissions 

inventory for the plan’s base year 

(2010); and (2) an attainment 

demonstration. The attainment 

demonstration includes: technical 

analyses that locate, identify, and 

quantify sources of emissions 

contributing to violations of the 2008 

Lead NAAQS; analyses of future-year 

emissions reductions and air quality 

improvements expected to result from 

national and local programs; adopted 

emission reduction measures with 

schedules for implementation; and 

contingency measures required under 

section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. See 73 FR 

67035. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Alabama’s attainment plan submittal 

for the Troy area? 

A. Attainment Demonstration 

Consistent with CAA requirements 

(see, e.g., section 172), and 40 CFR 

51.117, an attainment demonstration for 

a lead nonattainment area must include 

a showing that the area will attain the 

2008 Lead NAAQS as expeditiously as 

practicable. The demonstration must 

also 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. In the case of 

the Troy Area, EPA is proposing that the 

attainment plan submitted by Alabama 

is sufficient, and EPA is proposing to 

approve individual components of the 

plan. 

1. Pollutants Addressed 

Alabama’s lead attainment plan 

evaluates lead emissions in the Troy 

Area within Pike County. There are no 

significant precursors to consider for the 

lead attainment plan. 

2. Emissions Inventory Requirements 

States are required under section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop 

comprehensive, accurate and current 

emissions inventories of all sources of 

the relevant pollutant or pollutants in 

the area. These inventories provide a 

detailed accounting of all emissions and 

emission sources by precursor or 

pollutant. In the November 12, 2008 

Lead Standard (PDF) (99pp, 665k) 

rulemaking, EPA finalized the guidance 

related to the emissions inventories 

requirements. The current regulations 

are located at 40 CFR 51.117(e), and 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following requirements: 

• States must develop and 

periodically update a comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual 

emissions from all source affecting 

ambient lead concentrations; 

• The SIP inventory must be 

approved by EPA as a SIP element and 

is subject to public hearing 

requirements; and 

• The point source inventory upon 

which the summary of the baseline for 

lead emissions inventory is based must 

contain allsources that emit 0.5 or more 

tons of lead per year. 

For the base-year inventory of actual 

emissions, EPA recommends using 

either 2010 or 2011 as the base year for 

the contingency measure calculations, 

but does provide flexibility for using 

other inventory years if states can show 

another year is more appropriate.1 For 

lead SIPs, the CAA requires that all 

sources of lead emissions in the 

nonattainment area must be submitted 

with the base-year inventory. In today’s 

action, EPA is proposing to approve the 

base year emissions inventory portion of 

the SIP revision submitted by Alabama 

on November 9, 2012, as required by 

section 172(c)(3). 

The State of Alabama followed EPA’s 

recommendation by using the year of 

designation (2010) as the base year in 

the November 9, 2012 Lead SIP. Actual 

emissions from all sources of lead were 

reviewed and compiled, as applicable 

and available, for the base year 

emissions inventory requirement. All 

applicable sources of lead emissions 

contained in the Troy nonattainment 

area were estimated and included in the 

inventory. 

The only source of lead emissions 

above 0.5 tons per year within the Troy 

Area is Sanders Lead, a secondary lead 

smelting and refining facility which 

processes scrap metal and lead bearing 

by-products into refined lead alloys. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.117(e), the 

facility is the only point source 

evaluated as part of this emissions 

inventory requirement and is therefore, 

the only source that is required to be 

evaluated as part of this attainment 

demonstration. In addition to complying 

with the 2008 Lead NAAQS, the facility 

is also subject to the revised Secondary 

Lead MACT (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

X). The facility’s emissions were 

calculated using data collected from 

stack tests with the application of AP– 

42 emissions factors for each source, 

and quality assured by ADEM. ADEM 

used the EPA 2008 National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI)2 to obtain estimates of 

the stationary area and nonroad and 

onroad mobile emissions for the Troy 

Area. 

Stationary area source emissions, 

shown below in Table 1, were obtained 

from the Emissions Inventory System 

maintained by EPA which has the most 

current information. The nonroad 

emissions are negligible and therefore 

assumed to be zero for the purpose of 

this SIP, and are consistent with the 

nonroad 2008 model. The emissions 

data for the nonroad category which 

includes aircraft (airports), rail and 

commercial marine vessels was 

obtained from the 2008 NEI version 2. 

Onroad lead emissions are negligible 

and therefore assumed to be zero, 

consistent with MOVES 2010b model 

and the 2008 NEI. A more detailed 

discussion of the emissions inventory 

development can be found in Alabama’s 

November 9, 2012 submittal. 

Table 1 below shows the level of 

emissions calculated in pounds per year 

(lbs/year) in the Area for the 2010 base 

year, and by emissions source 

categories, as provided in Alabama’s 

November 9, 2012 attainment plan. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
54838 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W (EPA’s Guideline 

on Air Quality Models) (November 2005) located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/

appw_05.pdf. 

TABLE 1—2010 AND PROJECTED 2015 LEAD EMISSIONS FOR THE TROY AREA

[Pounds per year] 

Year Onroad Nonroad Area Point 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 0 205.94 0.56 7,162 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 0 205.94 0.56 946 

Total Reduction ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 6,216 

EPA evaluated Alabama’s 2010 base 

year emissions inventory for the Troy 

Area, and made the preliminary 

determination that this inventory was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

guidance for emissions inventory. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 172(c)(3), 

EPA is proposing to approve Alabama’s 

2010 base year emissions inventory for 

the Troy Area. The projected emissions 

for 2015 represent an 87 percent 

reduction from the base year lead 

emissions, and, as discussed in the 

modeling section below, provide 

sufficient emissions reductions for the 

Troy Area to attain the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

3. Modeling 

The lead attainment demonstration 

must include air quality dispersion 

modeling developed in accordance with 

EPA’s Modeling Guidance.3 The 

Alabama modeling analysis was 

prepared using EPA’s preferred 

dispersion modeling system, the 

American Meteorological Society/

Environmental Protection Agency 

Regulatory Model (AERMOD) consisting 

of the AERMOD (version 12060) model 

and two data input preprocessors 

AERMET (version 11059) and AERMAP 

(version 11103). The non-regulatory 

AERMINUTE (version 11325) 

meteorological preprocessor and 

AERSURFACE (version 08009) were 

also used to develop inputs to AERMET. 

The Building Profile Input Program for 

Plume Rise Model Enhancements was 

also used in the downwash-modeling 

and incorporated good engineering 

practice, and technical procedures. 

More detailed information on the 

AERMOD Modeling system and other 

modeling tools and documents can be 

found on the EPA Technology Transfer 

Network Support Center for Regulatory 

Atmospheric Modeling (SCRAM) 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/) and in 

Alabama’s November 9, 2012 SIP 

submittal in the docket for this 

proposed action (EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0173) on the www.regulations.gov Web 

site. A brief description of the modeling 

used to support Alabama’s attainment 

demonstration follows. 

a. Modeling Approach 

The following is an overview of the 

Sanders Lead modeling approach used 

in Alabama’s November 9, 2012 SIP 

submittal. This approach was developed 

by the URS Corporation, on behalf of 

Sanders Lead, and revised based on 

comments received from ADEM and 

EPA. The basic procedures are outlined 

as follows: 

• Start with the most recent 2010 

emissions estimates for point, area, 

volume and mobile sources at Sanders 

Lead; 

• Develop model inputs using the 

AERMOD modeling system including 

the: 

Æ AERMOD pre-processors AERMET 

and AERMINUTE to process five years’ 

(i.e., 2006–2010) 1-minute 

meteorological data from the National 

Weather Service (NWS) Montgomery, 

Alabama, surface level site (identified as 

KMGM) (the closest weather station to 

Sanders Lead), based on ADEM’s land 

use classifications, in combination with 

upper-air meteorological data from the 

Birmingham, Alabama, NWS upper-air 

sounding site (KBMX); 

Æ AERMOD pre-processor AERMAP 

to generate terrain inputs for the 

receptors, based on a digital elevation 

mapping database from the National 

Elevation Dataset developed by the U.S. 

Geological Survey; 

Æ AERMOD pre-processor 

AERSURFACE to generate direction 

specific land use based surface 

characteristics for the modeling; 

Æ Define a Cartesian receptor grid 

across the nonattainment boundary 

(approximately 0.8 miles around the 

Sanders Lead facility), with 100 meter 

spacing in ambient air to ensure 

maximum concentrations are captured; 

and 

Æ Develop all other input options 

commensurate with the Regulatory 

Modeling Guidance. 

• Perform current and post control 

dispersion modeling using the EPA 

approved AERMOD modeling system; 

• Process AERMOD output through 

EPA’s LEADPOST post processor 

(version 12114) deriving the maximum 

3 month average rolling design value 

across the 5 year meteorological data 

period; and 

• Document the results in a report 

suitable for inclusion as an appendix for 

the Troy Area Lead SIP. 

b. Modeling Results 

The Lead NAAQS compliance results 

of the attainment modeling are 

summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2 

presents the results from the two sets of 

AERMOD modeling runs that were 

performed. The two modeling runs were 

the result of using two different fiveyear (2006–2010) meteorological 

datasets based on AERSURFACEdeveloped surface characteristics 

representative of the NWS site in 

Montgomery, Alabama (NWS MET 

Data). The first and second rows of 

Table 2 present the surface 

characteristics representative of the 

Sanders Lead facility site (Facility MET 

Data). This procedure was used since 

on-site meteorological data was not 

available. Modeling with the two sets of 

data was also used since on-site 

meteorological data are not available at 

the Sanders Lead facility. 

A background ambient air quality 

concentration is required to be added to 

the modeled concentrations for the 

purpose of developing a lead design 

value, such that attainment of the 

control strategy is demonstrated. The 

background concentration for the SIP 

was based on speciated air quality data 

from the Montgomery, Alabama airport 

monitor (site number 01–101–1002) 

from the last two months of 2005 and 

the years 2006–2010. The data is 

recorded and collected once every 6th 

day. Monthly averages of the data from 

this period were obtained and used to 

develop the 3-month rolling averaged 

concentrations. The highest of the 3- 

month averaged concentrations (i.e., 

0.009 mg/m3) was used in the modeled 

compliance test (see column 3 of Table 

2). 

As can be seen in Table 2, the 

maximum 3-month rolling average 

across all five years of meteorological 

data (2006–2010) is less than or equal to 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS of 0.15 mg/m3 for 

both sets of AERMOD modeling runs. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 54839 

4Final results listed in Table 2 are rounded 

according to 40 CFR part 50, Appendix R; 

specifically subsection 4(a) which addresses comparison with the Lead NAAQS, as well as 5(a), 

(b), and (c) which addresses rounding conventions. 

Output from the LEADPOST processor 

which details all of the concentrations 

can be found in Appendix G of 

Alabama’s November 9, 2012 SIP 

submittal. 

TABLE 2—POST-CONTROL MODELING RESULTS 4

Sanders lead facility impacts Max 3-mth rolling 

average 

Background 

concentration Total concentration NAAQS 

Year 

maximum 

occurred 

Post-Construction ([NWS] MET Data) ... 0.144 μg/m3 .......... 0.009 μg/m3 .......... 0.15 μg/m3 ............ 0.15 μg/m3 ............ 2010 

Post-Construction (Facility MET Data) .. 0.139 μg/m3 .......... 0.009 μg/m3 .......... 0.15 μg/m3 ............ 0.15 μg/m3 ............ 2010 

The pre-control analysis resulted in a 

predicted impact of 5.30 mg/m3 (NWS 

MET data) and 3.64 mg/m3 (Facility MET 

data). The post-control analysis resulted 

in a predicted impact of 0.15 mg/m3

(NWS MET data) and 0.15 mg/m3

(Facility MET data). This data indicates 

significant reductions in air quality 

impact with the future implementation 

of the post-construction control plan for 

the Sanders Lead facility. This data also 

supports that the controls represent 

RACM and RACT for the SIP. The 

control strategy for the facility as 

reflected in its Air Permit No. 210–0005 

includes enclosure of the furnace 

building and installation of canopy 

hoods over each blast furnace and 

compliance with the Secondary Lead 

MACT (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart X). 

More details on the pre- and postconstruction operations at the facility 

are included in the Alabama SIP. 

Therefore, on this basis, ADEM asserted 

that the proposed controls are RACM/

RACT and should be sufficient to attain 

2008 Lead NAAQS. 

EPA has reviewed the modeling that 

Alabama submitted to support the 

attainment demonstration for the Troy 

Area and has preliminarily determined 

that this modeling is consistent with 

CAA requirements, Appendix W and 

EPA guidance for lead attainment 

demonstration modeling. 

4. RACM/RACT 

a. Requirements for RACM/RACT 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan provides for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable and 

attainment of the NAAQS. EPA 

interprets RACM, including RACT, 

under section 172, as measures that a 

state determines to be both reasonably 

available and contribute to attainment 

as expeditiously as practicable in the 

nonattainment area. A comprehensive 

discussion of the RACM/RACT 

requirement for lead attainment plans 

and EPA’s guidance can be found in the 

SIP Toolkit. 

b. Alabama’s Analysis of Pollutants and 

Sources for the Troy Area 

Alabama’s analysis is found in 

Chapter 6 of the November 9, 2012 SIP 

submittal. The State determined that 

controls for lead emissions at Sanders 

Lead are appropriate in the Troy Area 

for purposes of attaining the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. EPA preliminarily agrees that 

Alabama’s determination is supported 

by its analysis. 

c. Alabama’s Evaluation of RACM/

RACT Control Measures for the Troy 

Area 

On November 9, 2012, Air Permit No. 

210–0005 was issued to Sanders Lead 

for additional proposed control 

measures to reduce lead emissions. The 

Title V permit reflecting RACT controls 

is included in Appendix F of the 

November 9, 2012 SIP submittal. In 

accordance with the schedule in the 

Title V permit, Sanders Lead was 

required to implement the controls on 

or before July 1, 2013. ADEM 

represented to EPA that Sanders Lead 

has completed implementation of the 

RACT controls listed in the permit and 

summarized in Table 3 below: 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF RACT CONTROLS 5

Description of measure Explanation 

Control and Enclose Furnace Operations .......... Sanders Lead is proposing to install canopy hoods over each blast furnace with supply air to 

reduce worker lead exposures. Additionally, the furnace building will be enclosed. A new 

318,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM) baghouse followed by high-efficiency particulate air 

(HEPA) filters will be installed to control emissions captured by the new hoods and building 

enclosure (including the kettle basement ventilation). 

Control and Enclose Refining Operations .......... Sanders Lead is proposing to enclose the refining building, including the elimination of sidewall 

fans. Area ventilation will be provided by the new 318,000 CFM baghouse discussed above. 

Combustion gases and Refining Kettle Hoods .. Sanders Lead is proposing to control the combustion gases and kettle hoods with a new 

60,000 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM) baghouse (with HEPAs). 

Relocate Industrial Battery Decasing and Enclose Raw Material Handling Operations.Sanders Lead is proposing to relocate the industrial battery decasing operations to the inside 

of the existing raw material storage building. A new 60,000 ACFM collector with HEPA filters 

will be installed to control industrial battery decasing and raw material storage area. 

Battery Breaker/Shredder Operations ................ Sanders Lead is proposing to enclose the Shredder Building and install a new 12,000 ACFM 

wet scrubber to control acid emissions from specific point locations within the Shredder 

Building. The exhaust from this scrubber along with building exhaust will be exhausted 

through a new 60,000 ACFM bag collector (with HEPAs). 

Enclose Baghouse Hoppers and Transport of 

Dust.

Sanders Lead is proposing to enclose the base of baghouses #1 and #5, including the access 

doors and removable panels on the units. Ventilation will be provided by ducting to existing 

baghouses. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
54840 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5Table found in the Title V permit. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF RACT CONTROLS 5—Continued 

Description of measure Explanation 

Improve Process Material Transport to Eliminate Leaded Outdoor Traffic.In order to eliminate leaded outdoor traffic, Sanders Lead is proposing to install building connection tunnel for the transport of material from shredder to the raw material storage building. 

Relocate and Contain Leaded Vehicle Maintenance.Sanders Lead is proposing to install transfer points at the refining, smelting and raw material 

storage vehicle exits to maintain ‘‘leaded’’ vehicles inside the building. Sanders Lead is proposing to relocate leaded vehicle maintenance to a newly enclosed constructed area. 

Improved Watering ............................................. Sanders Lead is proposing to develop an updated watering plan based on the new vehicle 

patterns and facility layout. The watering plan will include an improved floor wetting system 

inside and outside the building, as well as purchasing new wet sweepers for the outside 

buildings. 

d. Proposed Action on RACM/RACT 

Demonstration and Control Strategy 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s determination that the 

proposed controls for lead emissions at 

Sanders Lead constitute RACM/RACT 

for that source in the Troy Area based 

on our analysis described above. 

Further, as summarized above, EPA 

proposes that no further controls would 

be required at Sanders Lead and that the 

proposed controls are sufficient for 

RACM/RACT purposes for the Troy 

Area, at this time. 

Since the Troy Area is projected to 

attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS by the 

2015 attainment date, and at this time, 

no additional measures could be 

adopted to attain one year sooner, EPA 

proposes to approve Alabama’s 

November 9, 2012 SIP submission as 

meeting the RACM/RACT requirements 

of the SIP Toolkit and that the level of 

control in the State’s submission 

constitutes RACM/RACT for purposes of 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. By approving 

these control measures as RACM/RACT 

for Sanders Lead for purposes of 

Alabama’s attainment planning, these 

control measures will become 

permanent and enforceable SIP 

measures to meet the requirements of 

the CAA and 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

5. RFP Plan 

Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires 

that an attainment plan includes a 

demonstration that shows reasonable 

further progress for meeting air quality 

standards will be achieved through 

generally linear incremental 

improvement in air quality. As stated in 

the final Lead Rule (73 FR 67039), EPA 

concluded that it was appropriate that 

RFP requirements be satisfied by the 

strict adherence to an ambitious 

compliance schedule, which is expected 

to periodically yield significant 

emission reductions. The control 

measures for attainment of the 2008 

Lead NAAQS included in Chapter 6 of 

the State’s submittal have been modeled 

to achieve attainment of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. The stipulations require these 

control measures and resulting 

emissions reductions to be achieved as 

expeditiously as practicable. As a result 

of an ambitious compliance schedule, 

yielding a significant reduction in lead 

emissions from the Sanders Lead facility 

and resulting in modeled attainment of 

the NAAQS, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that ADEM’s lead 

attainment plan for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS fulfills the RFP requirements 

for the Troy Area. EPA, therefore, 

proposes to approve the State’s 

attainment plan with respect to the RFP 

requirements. 

6. Contingency Measures 

In accordance with section 172(c)(9) 

of the CAA, contingency measures are 

required as additional measures to be 

implemented in the event that an area 

fails to meet the RFP requirements or 

fails to attain a standard by its 

attainment date. 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 its 

attainment date and should contain 

trigger mechanisms and an 

implementation schedule. In addition, 

they should be measures not already 

included in the SIP control strategy for 

attaining the standard and should 

provide for emission reductions 

equivalent to one year of RFP. 

Based on all the improvements that 

are planned for Sanders Lead, ADEM 

believes that the 2008 Lead NAAQS can 

be achieved on a consistent basis. 

However, if an exceedance of the 

NAAQS occurs during any three month 

period after July 2013 (the deadline for 

full implementation of the control 

strategy), within 180 days, Sanders Lead 

will submit an investigative study 

identifying the source(s) of excessive 

emissions contributing to the 

exceedance and will develop and 

prepare a strategy to eliminate the 

likelihood of another exceedance. This 

strategy will contain a plan identifying 

which stack or stacks will be raised and 

to what extent. Within 18 months of the 

NAAQS violation(s), these measures 

will be fully implemented. Potential 

controls which may provide some 

additional reductions include: 

(1) Adding a second gate on the south 

end of the property in order to direct 

significant traffic flow to an area further 

away from the maximum lead impact 

areas; 

(2) planting vegetation in specific 

areas to help control dust flow patterns 

and scavenge fugitive lead emissions; 

(3) re-evaluating material handling 

procedures, patterns, etc., to determine 

if improvements can be made; 

(4) re-evaluating housekeeping 

procedures, including dust sweeping 

and collection equipment; and 

(5) implementing other improvements 

that may become evident based on 

potential source(s) of lead emissions 

identified during investigation. 

EPA proposes that the contingency 

measures submitted by Alabama meet 

the section 172(c)(9) requirements for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

7. Attainment Date 

Alabama provided a demonstration 

attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS for 

the Troy Area by no later than five years 

after the Area was designated 

nonattainment. The modeling indicates 

that the Troy Area will attain the 2008 

Lead NAAQS by December 31, 2015, 

and therefore, EPA is proposing to 

approve the State’s attainment date. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s lead attainment plan for the 

Troy Area. EPA has preliminarily 

determined that the SIP meets the 

applicable requirements of the CAA. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve Alabama’s November 9, 2012 

SIP submission, which includes the 

attainment demonstration, base year 

emissions inventory, RACM/RACT 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 54841 

analysis, contingency measures and RFP 

plan. The requirement for a RFP plan is 

satisfied because Alabama demonstrated 

that the Area will attain the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS by the proposed attainment 

date of December 31, 2015. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal that 

complies with the provisions of the Act 

and applicable Federal regulations. 42 

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

in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 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, October 7, 

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 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 

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 

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: August 22, 2013. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21781 Filed 9–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 152 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0456; FRL–9396–2] 

RIN 2070–AJ58 

Notification of Submission to the 

Secretary of Agriculture; Pesticides; 

Satisfaction of Data Requirements; 

Procedures To Ensure Protection of 

Data Submitters’ Rights 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notification of submission to 

the Secretary of Agriculture. 

SUMMARY: This document notifies the 

public as required by the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) that the EPA Administrator 

has forwarded to the Secretary of the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) a draft final rule titled: 

‘‘Pesticides; Satisfaction of Data 

Requirements; Procedures to Ensure 

Protection of Data Submitters’ Rights.’’ 

The draft regulatory document is not 

available to the public until after it has 

been signed and made available by EPA. 

DATES: See Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0456, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Docket (OPP Docket) in the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Drewes, Field and External Affairs 

Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 347–0107; email address: 

drewes.scott@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

Section 25(a)(2)(B) of FIFRA requires 

the EPA Administrator to provide the 

Secretary of USDA with a copy of any 

draft final rule at least 30 days before 

signing it in final form for publication 

in the Federal Register. The draft final 

rule is not available to the public until 

after it has been signed by EPA. If the 

Secretary of USDA comments in writing 

regarding the draft final rule within 15 

days after receiving it, the EPA 

Administrator shall include the 

comments of the Secretary of USDA, if 

requested by the Secretary of USDA, 

and the EPA Administrator’s response 

to those comments with the final rule 

that publishes in the Federal Register. 

If the Secretary of USDA does not 

comment in writing within 15 days after 

receiving the draft final rule, the EPA 

Administrator may sign the final rule for 

publication in the Federal Register any 

time after the 15-day period. 

II. Do any statutory and Executive 

Order reviews apply to this 

notification? 

No. This document is merely a 

notification of submission to the 

Secretary of USDA. As such, none of the 

regulatory assessment requirements 

apply to this document. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 152 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 20, 2013. 

Steve Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21602 Filed 9–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1