Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19009 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 8/31/11, 2/17/12 10/17/12, 77 FR 63736 Approval of the following PSD-related elements or 

portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), 

except taking no action on the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14 

section 2.66 only as it relates to the requirement to include condensable emissions of particulate matter in that definition. See 

§ 52.2522(i). 

2/17/12 4/7/2014 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document 

begins and date].

This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), 

(C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–07589 Filed 4–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0413; FRL–9909–10– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania pursuant to the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA 

requires states to submit a plan for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS. The plan is 

required to address basic program 

elements, including, but not limited to 

regulatory structure, monitoring, 

modeling, legal authority, and adequate 

resources necessary to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the standards. 

These elements are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. The 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has 

made a submittal addressing the 

infrastructure requirements for the 2008 

lead (Pb) NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 7, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0413. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ruth Knapp, (215) 814–2191, or by 

email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of SIP Revision 

On July 16, 2013 (78 FR 42482), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

proposing approval of Pennsylvania’s 

September 24, 2012 SIP submittal to 

satisfy several requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. In the NPR, EPA proposed 

approval of the following infrastructure 

elements: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The 

NPR does not include section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, Title I of the CAA, since this 

element is not required to be submitted 

by the 3-year submission deadline of 

section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed 

in a separate process. EPA is taking 

separate action on the portion of 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to CAA 

section 128 (State Boards). 

The rationale supporting EPA’s 

proposed action, including the scope of 

infrastructure SIPs in general, is 

explained in the NPR and the technical 

support document (TSD) accompanying 

the NPR and will not be restated here. 

The TSD is available online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0413. On August 

20, 2013, EPA received public 

comments on its July 16, 2013 NPR from 

the Berks County Commissioners 

(referred to herein as the commenter). A 

summary of the comments submitted 

and EPA’s responses are provided in 

section II of this action. 

II. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: The commenter has raised 

several concerns related to lead 

monitoring and permitting in Berks 

County, Pennsylvania near the Exide 

Technologies secondary lead smelter 

facility (Exide). The commenter does 

not believe that EPA should approve the 

lead infrastructure SIP submitted by the 

Commonwealth for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS for several reasons, most of 

which are related to the commenter’s 

concerns about the adequacy of the lead 

monitoring network and relate to the 

commenter’s interpretation of the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) of 

the CAA. 

First, the commenter contends that 

the existing network being used by the 

Commonwealth is not adequate and 

does not meet applicable EPA guidance 

(EPA–454/R–92–009) and 40 CFR part 

58 Appendix D. Specifically, the 

commenter contends that the two 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19010 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1The EPA issued a final rule on November 12, 

2008 that revised the NAAQS for lead and 

associated ambient air lead monitoring 

requirements (73 FR 66964, codified at 40 CFR part 

58). As part of the lead monitoring requirements, 

monitoring agencies are required to monitor 

ambient air near lead sources which are expected 

to or have been shown to have a potential to 

contribute to a 3-month average lead concentration 

in ambient air in excess of the level of the NAAQS. 

At a minimum, 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D requires 

monitoring agencies to monitor near non-airport 

lead sources that emit 0.50 ton per year (tpy) or 

more into the ambient air. Pennsylvania’s monitors 

at Laureldale South and Laureldale North monitor 

near a lead source (Exide) that emits or has emitted 

over 0.50 tpy or more of lead, and the monitors 

meet the EPA’s monitor requirements from the 2008 

rule and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D. 

2EPA believes these nonapproved monitors 

which were referred to by the commenter as the St. 

Mike’s monitors were owned and operated by Exide 

until at least January 2012 at which point EPA 

believes Exide ceased operating the monitors 

because the facility also ceased operation. While the 

commenter asserts the St. Mike’s monitors were 

operated through at least April 2013, and EPA 

believes the monitors ceased operations sooner, 

EPA does not believe the date the St. Mike’s 

monitors stopped operating and collecting data is 

relevant to the issue here which is the adequacy of 

Pennsylvania’s monitoring network for the 2008 

lead NAAQS. 

monitoring stations (Laureldale South 

and Laureldale North) being used by the 

Commonwealth to assess lead NAAQS 

compliance in the area are not located 

at points of maximum ambient 

concentration and asserts the 

Pennsylvania monitors must be located 

at the point of maximum concentration. 

Additionally, the commenter states 

other lead monitors in the area show 

higher concentrations of lead. The 

commenter states that the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(PADEP) refused to consider 

voluminous monitoring station data 

demonstrating more significant 

nonattainment than at the PADEP 

monitors. The commenter believes these 

monitors, known as the St. Mike’s 

monitors, operated and collected data 

until at least April 2013. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter regarding the adequacy of 

Pennsylvania’s lead monitoring 

network. The Laureldale South lead 

monitor (AQS ID 42–011–0717) was 

established January 1, 1976 and has 

been in continual operation since that 

date. The monitor has been effective in 

identifying violations of the Pb NAAQS 

as recently as January 2013. 

Additionally, collocated monitors were 

established at Laureldale North (AQS ID 

42–011–0020) on January 1, 2010 to 

comply with the November 2008 lead 

NAAQS.1 The monitors at Laureldale 

North have also been effective in 

identifying violations of the lead 

NAAQS as recently as December 2012. 

Section 4.5(a) of Appendix D to 40 

CFR part 58 provides for siting of 

monitors where lead concentrations 

from all sources are expected to be at 

the maximum taking into account 

logistics and the potential for 

population exposure. PADEP has 

effectively deployed monitors in 

locations that are both within the 

bounds of the 2008 rule and 40 CFR part 

58 Appendix D considering important 

factors such as logistics, while still 

identifying local NAAQS violations. 

Prior to deploying the Laureldale 

North monitors, PADEP submitted a 

modeling study and conducted site 

visits with EPA. PADEP evaluated the 

location of the St. Mike’s monitors 

during this period but concluded that 

the existing electrical power 

infrastructure at the St. Mike’s 

monitoring site was insufficient to 

support and maintain appropriate staterun monitors in addition to the existing 

St. Mike’s monitors operated and 

maintained by Exide at the St. Mike’s 

monitor locations. During PADEP’s 

study, PADEP concluded it would need 

additional infrastructure including a 

new transformer and additional power 

poles to add monitors at the St. Mike’s 

location, which was a logistical 

impediment to locating any monitor at 

these locations given the additional 

financial costs of using these sites. 

PADEP selected the Laureldale North 

site because it was logistically feasible; 

analysis indicated it would monitor 

levels above the NAAQS; and it met 

siting requirements of CFR part 58 

appendix D. Subsequently, the 

Laureldale North site was properly sited 

and has recorded monitored violations 

of the 2008 lead NAAQS with 

appropriately quality assured and 

quality controlled data in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58. Since this location 

along with Laureldale South has 

recorded violations of the NAAQS, 

these sites may need to be maintained 

for decades after the area reaches 

attainment. 

The current location of the monitors 

(Laureldale North and South) was 

approved by EPA based on the modeling 

study in conjunction with 40 CFR part 

58 Appendix D paragraph 4.5(a), which 

provides in part that many factors like 

logistics are considered when deploying 

any ambient air monitor other than 

simply the modeled maximum 

concentration. Such factors include, but 

are not limited to, access, leasing 

agreements, accessibility to electricity, 

costs and worker safety. PADEP’s 

conclusions regarding appropriate 

monitors for the 2008 lead NAAQS was 

reasonable based on the factors PADEP 

considered, including logistics. EPA 

believes Pennsylvania has valid 

concerns regarding logistics and 

resources with adding additional 

monitors (or relocating monitors) in this 

area (including at the St. Mike’s 

locations). EPA has approved 

Pennsylvania’s 2013 annual ambient air 

monitoring network plan and earlier 

plans because they met the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 

It appears from material submitted by 

the commenter that the commenter has 

at times in the past indicated to PADEP 

that it would help ‘‘defray’’ some costs 

if PADEP were to place a monitor at the 

St. Mike’s sites.2 However, the current 

monitoring network meets the 

applicable requirements and 

establishing an additional monitor 

would lead to PADEP incurring 

significant costs for lab work, personnel, 

and maintenance associated with 

Pennsylvania operating an additional 

monitor. While the commenter states 

that it offered to ‘‘help offset’’ some of 

the operational costs of Pennsylvania 

maintaining and operating an 

appropriate monitor at the St. Mike’s 

location in addition to the Laureldale 

North and South monitors, the 

commenter has not established any 

factual evidence or assurances to 

contradict Pennsylvania’s concerns 

about maintaining such a monitoring 

site over many years if needed. Since 

the current network meets the 

applicable requirements, EPA believes 

Pennsylvania’s logistical and financial 

concerns still support its Laureldale 

North and South monitors as adequate 

for the 2008 lead NAAQS, as they are 

appropriate devices and methods to 

monitor, compile and analyze data on 

ambient air quality as required by 

section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA. 

EPA concludes that Pennsylvania 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA for monitoring 

for the 2008 lead NAAQS, as discussed 

in EPA’s Lead Infrastructure Guidance 

and as described in detail in EPA’s 

technical support document 

accompanying the NPR. EPA’s analysis 

will not be restated here. The TSD is 

available in the docket for this action at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0413. While the 

St. Mike’s monitors which are not 

included in Pennsylvania’s approved 

monitoring network may show 

divergent ambient lead concentration 

data from the Laureldale North and 

South monitors, EPA does not view that 

data as dispositive regarding the 

adequacy of Pennsylvania’s monitoring 

network for the 2008 lead NAAQS, 

particularly in light of the logistical 

issues discussed above. Pennsylvania’s 

network meets all applicable 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19011 

3To the extent the commenter is objecting to the 

lack of action on the facility’s remanded Title V 

permit, those issues are outside the scope of this 

proceeding and should be pursued by the 

commenter within the Title V administrative 

process for permits. 4As noted above, however, EPA gives, at most, 

limited weight to monitoring data that does not 

meet the regulatory requirements for comparison to 

the NAAQS, such as those set forth in Appendices 

A, C, and E of part 58. 5 If EPA revises the lead NAAQS in the future, a 

separate infrastructure submittal that addresses the 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA 

will be developed by Pennsylvania for EPA’s review 

and approval. 

requirements in the 2008 rule, 40 CFR 

part 58 Appendix D and in applicable 

EPA guidance (EPA–454/R–92–009). 

EPA notes that data from monitors 

which do not meet federal monitoring 

requirements, such as the Federal 

quality assurance and quality control 

requirements in Appendices A, C, and 

E to 40 CFR part 58, have limited use 

and cannot be compared to the NAAQS 

for regulatory purposes by EPA. 

EPA also notes that because 

Laureldale North and South have shown 

recent violations of the 2008 lead 

NAAQS with appropriately quality 

assured, quality controlled data from a 

monitor system audited by an 

independent auditor for performance, 

any monitor data from nonapproved 

monitors which may show potentially 

higher lead concentrations would likely 

not alter the nonattainment status or 

requirements of the area near the Exide 

facility. EPA also notes that the area is 

required to attain the NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than December 31, 2015, and the area 

would generally need both a modeling 

analysis and monitored data to 

demonstrate it was attaining the 

NAAQS. 

Comment: The commenter also asserts 

that the Laureldale North monitor was 

not placed in an appropriate location 

because the analysis used for siting its 

location did not assess fugitive lead 

emissions from the Exide facility. The 

commenter states that the PADEP has 

taken no apparent action with respect to 

the issues regarding the Title V permit 

for Exide which has allegedly been 

remanded to PADEP for further 

consideration of fugitive lead emissions 

and that PADEP’s failure to make final 

determinations regarding accurate 

identification and quantification of 

fugitive emissions from the Exide 

facility exacerbates the inaccuracy of the 

SIP monitoring station conclusions 

made by PADEP. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter regarding the alleged 

inadequacy of Pennsylvania’s lead 

monitoring network due to failure to 

assess fugitive lead emissions when 

siting the monitors. EPA is aware that 

PADEP did not use fugitive emission 

sources in their 2009 modeling study of 

Exide prior to deployment of the 

Laureldale North monitors. However, 

fugitive emissions are extremely 

difficult to quantify, there is no standard 

way to do so, and inclusion in the 

modeling would have added to 

uncertainty already inherent in the 

model. Additionally, ground-level 

fugitive emissions do not travel far from 

the source and stay inside or very near 

the property fenceline. Therefore, EPA 

does not consider the lack of fugitive 

emissions from Pennsylvania’s 

modeling as dispositive to EPA’s 

conclusion that Pennsylvania’s lead 

monitors are adequate for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS as required by the 2008 rule 

and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D and 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

section110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA.3

Comment: The commenter alleges that 

EPA should not approve the 

Pennsylvania infrastructure submittal 

for the 2008 lead NAAQS because the 

lead monitoring network does not 

ensure that any future lead NAAQS 

attainment determinations are accurate 

and ‘‘will result in inaccurate NAAQS 

compliance conclusions.’’ The 

commenter states PADEP’s refusal to 

consider data from other monitors will 

allow unacceptable risk and/or actual 

harm to residents in the nonattainment 

area. 

Response: As noted earlier in this 

rulemaking action, EPA has concluded 

that the existing monitors satisfy the 

requirements of part 58. Furthermore, 

the existing monitors have identified 

nonattainment at this site and as a 

result, the area is required to develop a 

plan to attain the NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than December 31, 2015. Before the area 

is redesignated to attainment, the area 

would generally need both a modeling 

analysis and monitored data to 

demonstrate it was attaining the 

NAAQS. To the extent the commenter 

believes that the attainment 

demonstration and associated modeling 

is inadequate to assure compliance with 

the NAAQS in the entire nonattainment 

area, EPA believes the commenter 

should raise those concerns with 

Pennsylvania, and EPA, at the time for 

public comment on those documents.4

The NAAQS are established to provide 

protection for public health (including 

the health of sensitive populations such 

as children) with an adequate margin of 

safety. Thus, EPA believes that 

attainment of the NAAQS throughout 

the nonattainment area will prevent 

harm to local residents from lead 

emitted to the ambient air.5

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving, as a revision to the 

Pennsylvania SIP, Pennsylvania’s 

September 24, 2012 submittal which 

provides the basic program elements 

specified in sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), 

(C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

(E)(i),(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M) of the CAA, necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. This rulemaking 

action does not include approval of 

Pennsylvania’s submittal for section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) which pertains to CAA 

section 128 and which EPA will address 

in a separate action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 6, 2014. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action pertaining to 

Pennsylvania’s section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS, may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Lead, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 21, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for 

section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS at 

the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

Applicable 

geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS.

Statewide ........... 5/24/12 4/7/2014 [Insert Federal Register page number where 

the document begins and 

date].

This rulemaking action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), 

(C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

[FR Doc. 2014–07569 Filed 4–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0681; FRL–9909–07– 

Region–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Hawaii; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Hawaii on February 13, 2013, pursuant 

to the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on May 7, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2013–0681. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dawn Richmond, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3207, 

richmond.dawn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 23, 2013 (78 FR 63145), 

EPA proposed to approve elements of 

the Hawaii State Implementation Plan 

Revision for 2008 Lead National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard, Clean 

Air Act § 110(a)(1) and (2) (February 13, 

2013) (‘‘Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP’’), 

submitted by the State of Hawaii on 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES