
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19009-19012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07569]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 19010]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
state-run 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 19011]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ To 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 19012]]

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
   Name of non-regulatory SIP       Applicable  geographic    submittal    EPA approval date      Additional
            revision                         area                date                             explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure  Statewide................      5/24/12  4/7/2014 [Insert    This rulemaking
 Requirements for the 2008 Pb                                              Federal Register    action addresses
 NAAQS.                                                                    page number where   the following CAA
                                                                           the document        elements:
                                                                           begins and date].   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


