Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard, 30965-30974 [2015-13128]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30965-30974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13128]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223; FRL-9928-53-Region 7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead 
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to grant 
full approval of Missouri's attainment demonstration State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 lead National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment of the Viburnum Trend area in 
portions of Iron, Dent and Reynolds Counties, Missouri, submitted on 
April 18, 2013. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the State 
satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
identified in EPA's Final Rule published on October 15, 2008, and will 
bring the area into attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter 
(ug/m\3\) lead NAAQS in the Viburnum Trend, Missouri area.
    In this action, EPA also proposes approval of a revision to the 
Missouri SIP to incorporate an amendment to an existing Missouri 
statute to restrict lead emissions from specific sources. The amendment 
revises certain throughput and emissions limits applicable to the Doe 
Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF) in the Viburnum Trend lead 
nonattainment area. Approval of this rule will ensure consistency 
between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensure Federal 
enforceability of the revised state rule. This revision was submitted 
to EPA on October 30, 2009.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2015

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0223, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: doolan.stephanie@epa.gov.
    3. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Stephanie Doolan, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner 
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2015-0223. 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 information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. 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.
    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, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA, Air Planning and 
Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas. EPA 
requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The interested 
persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment 
with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Doolan at (913) 551-7719, or 
by email at doolan.stephanie@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?

[[Page 30966]]

II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been 
met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Background
V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP Related to 
the 2008 Lead NAAQS
    A. Facility Description
    1. BRRF Process Description
    2. Mines/Mills Process Description
    B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input 
Data
    C. Modeling Results
    1. Base Case Analysis
    2. Future Case Analysis
    D. Control Strategy
    E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable 
Further Progress (RFP)
    F. Attainment Demonstration
    G. New Source Review (NSR)
    H. Contingency Measures
    I. Enforceability
VI. Review of Revision to Missouri Rule Restricting Lead Emissions 
From Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations
    A. Background
    B. Analysis of Production and Emissions Limits
    C. Work Practice Manual (WPM)
    D. Reporting and Record Keeping
    E. Test Methods
VII. Proposed Action

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    In this document, EPA is addressing Missouri's attainment 
demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS nonattainment in the Viburnum 
Trend Missouri area. The applicable standard addressed in this action 
is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP 
submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA 
identified in EPA's Final Rule (73 FR 66964, October 15, 2008), and 
will bring the area into attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic 
meter (ug/m\3\) lead NAAQS in the Viburnum Trend lead nonattainment 
area.
    In this action, EPA is also addressing a revision to the Missouri 
SIP to approve portions of a revision to the State of Missouri Code of 
State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.120, ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead 
from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations''. This revision 
pertains to throughput limits applicable to the BRRF, which is the 
primary source of lead emissions in the Viburnum Trend nonattainment 
area. Pursuant to a withdrawal request from Missouri,\1\ EPA is taking 
action on specific portions Missouri rule 10 CSR 6.120. Missouri rule 
10 CSR 6.120, as it pertains to the Buick Resources Recycling Facility, 
was previously approved in the Missouri SIP. See 69 FR 51953. The 
Viburnum Trend SIP addressed in this proposed action relies upon 
portions of the revision to 10 CSR 6.120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See email from Wendy Vit, Air Quality Planning Section Chief 
for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, to Michael Jay, 
Chief of Atmospheric Programs Section, Air Planning and Development 
Branch of EPA Region 7, dated March 4, 2015, available in the 
Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP 
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also 
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In 
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the 
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Missouri's attainment 
demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS. We are also proposing to 
approve portions of a revision to Missouri rule 10 CSR 6.120, 
``Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery 
Installations''. EPA is proposing this action in order to solicit 
comments. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any 
comments received.

IV. Background

    EPA established the NAAQS for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR 
46246). The 1978 NAAQS for lead is set at a level of 1.5 micrograms per 
cubic meter (ug/m\3\) of air, averaged over a calendar quarter. The 
Viburnum Trend area is designated as attainment for the 1978 lead 
NAAQS.
    On October 15, 2008, EPA established a new lead NAAQS of 0.15 ug/
m\3\ in air, measured as a rolling three-month average. (73 FR 66964). 
On November 22, 2010, the Buick/Viburnum Trend area was designated as 
nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. (75 FR 71033).\2\ Under sections 
191(a) and 192(a) of the CAA, Missouri is required to submit to EPA an 
attainment demonstration SIP revision for lead and to demonstrate the 
nonattainment area will reach attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS no 
later than five years from the date of the nonattainment area 
designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA also designated city of Herculaneum, Missouri, as 
nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 75 FR 71033. This 
nonattainment area has been addressed in a separate action. 79 FR 
62574.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 ''Restriction of Emissions of Lead 
from Specific Lead Smelter--Refinery Installations'' establishes lead 
stack emissions limits and testing and recordkeeping requirements at 
specific lead smelters including the Herculaneum facility \3\ in 
Herculaneum, Missouri, and BRRF in Boss, Missouri. The Buick/Viburnum 
Trend lead NAAQS attainment SIP relies upon the requirements imposed by 
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120, with the exception of those requirements 
withdrawn by Missouri. In addition, the approval of the production 
limits for BRRF relies upon the modeling demonstration proposed in the 
Viburnum Trend area lead NAAQS attainment SIP, therefore, approval of 
the two SIP revisions are proposed concurrently herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The former Herculaneum primary lead smelter ceased lead 
smelting operations on December 31, 2013, pursuant to the terms of 
the Consent Decree applicable to the Herculaneum facility entered 
into by Doe Run, Missouri, and EPA in the United States District 
Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:10-cv-01895-
JCH (2011 Consent Decree) on December 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP Related to the 
2008 Lead NAAQS

A. Facility Description

1. BRRF Process Description
    There are four lead-emitting sources contributing to the Buick/
Viburnum Trend lead nonattainment area: BRRF; the Buick Mine and Mill; 
the Casteel Mine; and K & D Crushing. BRRF operates as a secondary 
smelter of lead, lead-containing materials including spent lead acid 
batteries, lead bullets and shot, lead-containing glass from cathode 
ray tubes, and lead-based paint chips from lead abatement projects. The 
Buick Mine and Mill, located to the south of BRRF, conducts subsurface 
mining and ore processing. The Casteel Mine, located to the north of 
BRRF, also conducts subsurface mining. K & D Crushing, also located to 
the north of BRRF, conducts ore crushing at the surface of the Casteel 
Mine. Crushed and concentrated lead-containing ore was formerly 
processed at the Herculaneum primary lead smelter, but since that 
facility ceased primary lead smelting in December 2013, the ore gets 
shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.
    As stated above, BRRF is located in the Buick/Viburnum Trend 
nonattainment area. BRRF's production limit is limited to 175,000 tons 
of total lead production each year pursuant to Missouri Rule 10 CSR 
6.120(3)(B)2. The majority of the lead recycled by BRRF is from spent 
automotive and industrial batteries.
    Lead-bearing items, primarily post-consumer lead-acid batteries, 
arrive at

[[Page 30967]]

the facility by truck. Spent batteries are stored in a battery bunker 
until processed in a shredder. Battery acid (weak sulfuric acid) is 
drained during shredding, collected in storage tanks and neutralized 
using calcium hydroxide. The shredded batteries are placed in a 
vibrating feeder in route to a conveyor belt to the hammer mill. The 
hammer mill pounds the material into smaller pieces.
    Batteries contain metal grids, lead posts, plastic casing and other 
components, separators and lead sulfate paste. The paste is removed by 
washing through a set of screens for further processing. The batteries 
further undergo a separation process under which lead and metal parts 
are separated from the plastic and other debris. The lead and metal 
parts are primarily fed to the reverberatory furnace, but also may be 
fed to the blast furnace. The plastic and other debris are skimmed off 
and sent to recycling facilities.
    The lead sulfate paste is passed through a filter press and 
neutralized with hydrated lime to form calcium sulfate, then heated at 
extremely high temperatures in the reverberatory furnace to produce 
soft antimonial lead bullion and reverberatory slag. Sulfur emissions 
from the reverberatory furnace are controlled by a dry, flue gas 
desulfurization scrubber that introduces lime and water to the 
reverberatory flue gas in a reaction and forms gypsum, which is removed 
from the gas stream by a polishing baghouse. The reverberatory slag is 
fed to the blast furnace to recover the antimonial lead. The Missouri 
SIP submittal contains a process flow diagram that details the emission 
point sources throughout the process that were included in the 
modeling.
2. Mines/Mills Process Description
    Modeling analysis conducted by Missouri determined that the Buick 
Mine and Mill, the Casteel Mine, and the K & D Crushing operations 
contribute significantly to the monitored violation of the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS at the air monitor. There are other mining and milling operations 
in the Viburnum Trend area, but these operations were not found to 
contribute significantly to the Lead NAAQS violation. Emissions from 
the Doe Run mining and milling operations are primarily in the form of 
fugitives from the processing of lead containing rock until it becomes 
a wet concentrate that is shipped to other customers. The process is 
described in greater detail as follows.
    Mining begins with the subsurface drilling and blasting of dolomite 
rock which contains varying amounts of lead sulfide, zinc sulfide, and 
copper-iron sulfide minerals. At the Casteel mine, the ore is hauled to 
the skip pocket ``as blasted,'' with no underground crushing. At the 
surface, the coarse ore is crushed by K & D Crushing, a contractor to 
Doe Run, into smaller pieces. The crushed ore is hauled to other Doe 
Run facilities, most frequently to the Buick Mine and Mill.
    At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore is hauled from the active mining 
faces to a central crusher where it is crushed down to approximately 
eight inch pieces. The ore is hoisted to the surface then conveyed to 
further on-site crushing and screening operations. After being crushed 
aboveground to less than 5/8-inch in size, the ore subjected to wet 
milling, and grinding with rods and ball mills until a coarse powder in 
a wet slurry is produced. The wet slurry further undergoes wet cyclone 
and floatation separation into lead sulfide, zinc sulfide and copper 
sulfide components.
    The concentrated sulfides further undergo dewatering to produce a 
concentrate that formerly was shipped to the Herculaneum primary lead 
smelter. As stated above, the Herculaneum facility ceased operations 
smelting operations in December 2013; thus, the concentrate is shipped 
overseas to primary lead smelting operations or to other customers.

B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data

    Missouri conducted air dispersion modeling to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the proposed control strategy. The model, AERMOD, was 
utilized and is EPA's preferred model for demonstrating attainment of 
the lead NAAQS. AERMOD estimates the combined ambient impact of sources 
by simulating Gaussian dispersion of emissions plumes. Emission rates, 
wind speed and direction, atmospheric mixing heights, terrain, plume 
rise from stack emissions, initial dispersion characteristics of 
fugitive sources, particle size and density are all factors considered 
by the model when estimating ambient impacts. Missouri performed two 
dispersion modeling analyses for the 2008 lead NAAQS for the Viburnum 
Trend nonattainment area. One was an analysis of current conditions to 
ensure the model is performing adequately (base case). The second 
analysis examined the effectiveness of proposed emission controls 
(future case). The results of these analyses will be discussed in more 
detail in section V.C. of this document.
    Missouri used the meteorological data from the meteorological 
monitoring station approximately 0.8 miles south of BRRF, co-located 
with the Buick South non-ambient lead air quality monitor. EPA's 
preference is for the use of five years of meteorological data to input 
the model (40 CFR part 51, appendix W, section 8.3.1.2); however, a 
minimum of one year of representative meteorological data are required. 
A detailed analysis of the meteorological data collected on-site 
concluded that only one consecutive year, from August 2009 to July 
2010, met the data quality requirements; thus, these surface level data 
were used to input the model. Wind speed and direction data from the 
on-site meteorological station were used to input the model, and 
surface temperature, humidity, and other information from the 
Farmington, Missouri, National Weather Service observation site were 
added to the BRRF wind observations. Finally, upper air data from the 
station at National Weather Service site in Springfield, Missouri, were 
used to input the model for the parameters including vertical 
temperature, moisture and wind characteristics of the atmosphere. This 
data set provided confidence that the controls selected for the 
attainment demonstration will be effective over a large variety of 
meteorological conditions. The meteorological data were run through 
AERMOD's pre-processors to make the data usable by the model.
    As required by section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, a revised emission 
inventory was developed for this nonattainment area. Hourly emissions 
data from January 2009 to October 2010 from BRRF and the Buick Mine and 
Mill were used to model the base case. Beginning in late 2010, 
construction of emission control projects to control fugitive lead dust 
and sulfur dioxide (SO2) impacted the base case emissions 
and ambient air monitoring data, making them no longer representative 
of pre-control conditions. Emissions represented in the model are from 
release points, stack emissions validated by stack test data, and 
fugitive emissions calculated using field measurements wherever 
possible or estimated based on EPA's AP-42 guidelines.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth 
Edition, https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2011 lead emission totals for Viburnum Trend nonattainment area 
are listed in Table 1 below. As discussed above, the emissions from the 
other mine and mill operations in the Viburnum Trend area were not 
found to

[[Page 30968]]

significantly impact the lead concentrations reported at the violating 
ambient air monitor and therefore are not listed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2011
                                                           Emissions \a\
           Facility name                  Site name        tons per year
                                                               (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRRF..............................  Buick Smelter.......           16.87
Doe Run...........................  Buick Mine and Mill.            1.07
Doe Run...........................  Casteel Mine........             0.2
K & D Crushing....................  Casteel Mine........             0.2
                                                         ---------------
    Total Emissions...............  ....................           18.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emissions reported to the Missouri Emissions Inventory System
  (MoEIS) database which are reported to EPA's National Emissions
  Inventory (NEI) database, version 1, released September 30, 2013,
  found at https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2011inventory.html.

    In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, background 
concentrations must be considered when determining NAAQS compliance. 
Background concentrations are intended to include impacts attributable 
to natural sources, nearby sources (excluding the dominant source(s)), 
and unidentified sources. The calculated background concentration 
includes all sources of lead not already included in the model run 
script. The background concentration includes distant sources of lead, 
which may have originally derived from the mining and milling and 
smelting operations, or naturally occurring lead in soils that has 
become re-entrained in the atmosphere.
    In general, the background value is calculated by averaging the 
monitored concentrations at monitor sites outside the area of immediate 
dominant source impact and on days when the predominant wind direction 
was not blowing from the dominant source to the monitors. Missouri 
began with all monitored days and identified days with no measured one-
hour average wind direction from the smelter. Each monitor was examined 
in conjunction with an acceptable wind fan and the concentrations are 
averaged on days with no predominant winds from the dominant sources. 
The monitor site chosen for the background determination is the Oates 
monitor located 4.9 miles south of BRRF. The days selected for the 
calculation match the model study period.
    EPA conducted an independent analysis of the data from the Oates 
monitor and corresponding wind direction to verify the background 
concentration calculated by Missouri. Based on its independent 
analysis, EPA agrees that the calculated value represents a 
conservative estimate of background during the study period. Additional 
information can be found in the Missouri SIP, Section 4.3.

C. Modeling Results

1. Base Case Analysis
    As discussed above, Missouri used the AERMOD dispersion model to 
run two analyses, the base case and the future case. The base case 
evaluated a reasonable estimate of maximum potential emissions to 
account for contributing sources based on normal facility operations. 
The base case model analysis used monitoring, emissions and 
meteorological data from August 2009 through July 2010.
    Results from the base case modeling were compared with actual 
monitoring data from the same time period to examine the reliability of 
the model. The statistical analysis was conducted using the coefficient 
of correlation, or R\2\. The correlation between modeling outputs under 
the base case and monitoring data was 0.8551 or greater, with 1.0 
indicating 1:1 correlation, confirms the accuracy and reliability of 
the model's inputs and results. EPA agrees with Missouri's 
determination that the model is sufficiently reliable to predict that 
the control measures modeled in the attainment demonstration (see 
paragraph 5.C.2 Future Case Analysis below) will result in monitored 
values below the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
2. Future Case Analysis
    The future case analysis evaluated the control strategies of the 
2013 SIP revision pursuant to the existing Federally enforceable 
requirements that are applicable to the facility as well as the 
enforceable 2013 Consent Judgment between Missouri, BRRF and Doe Run. 
See appendix M, Missouri SIP. The future case dispersion modeling is 
the attainment demonstration used to verify that the proposed control 
strategies will bring the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead nonattainment area 
into compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    The differences between the base and future case emissions rates 
are based on the changes to the operations resulting from 
implementation of the control measures required by the 2013 Consent 
Judgment. The control measures are discussed in paragraph V.D, Control 
Strategy, below.
    Many of the emissions reduction projects that are necessary to meet 
the 2008 Lead NAAQS were also required to be implemented by January 6, 
2014, for compliance with the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Lead Smelting (77 FR 556, January 
5, 2012). The Secondary Lead NESHAP, applicable to BRRF, requires, 
among other things, total enclosure and ventilation of lead processing 
and handling buildings to a negative pressure requirement of 0.02 
millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) and housekeeping procedures to reduce 
fugitive lead-containing dust.
    The secondary lead NESHAP, as fully implemented, is expected to 
result in a building capture efficiency of approximately 95 percent. 
EPA has allowed facilities to assume, on a site-specific basis, a 
building fugitive capture efficiency of greater than 95 percent upon 
demonstration that control measures exceed the requirements of the 
secondary lead NESHAP. In the case of BRRF, upon careful consideration 
of site-specific control measures, including the use of local exhaust 
ventilation devices (LEVs) and a demonstrated negative pressure in 
buildings exceeding 0.02 mm Hg, EPA agreed with Missouri that a 
building fugitives capture efficiency of 98 percent was appropriate to 
use in the modeling. This assumed 98 percent building capture 
efficiency impacts the modeled emissions rates as well as the estimated 
emissions reductions described in paragraph V.D, Control Strategy, 
below. A more detailed discussion of the building fugitives capture 
efficiency discussion may be found in section 6.2 of Missouri's SIP 
revision.
    The emissions rate reductions are expected to result in a monitored 
three-

[[Page 30969]]

month rolling average of 0.128 [micro]g/m\3\ lead or less at the 
nearest ambient monitoring location. When added to the background 
concentration of 0.20 [micro]g/m\3\, the predicted maximum three-month 
rolling average lead concentration is 0.148 [micro]g/m\3\. By 
comparison, the 2008 Lead NAAQS is 0.150 [micro]g/m\3\. Therefore, 
Missouri's modeling demonstrates attainment of the standard.
    EPA conducted an independent analysis to verify the predictions of 
Missouri's modeling. EPA agrees with the modeling conducted by Missouri 
for its future case analysis.

D. Control Strategy

    In order to bring the Viburnum Trend Area into attainment of the 
2008 Lead NAAQS, Missouri developed and modeled a control strategy for 
point source (e.g., stack) and fugitive emissions from the four 
significant sources of lead in the nonattainment area. Section 5.1 of 
the Missouri SIP revision details the control measures and the 
estimated emissions reductions.
    Missouri, Doe Run and BRRF developed a Consent Judgment, found in 
the Missouri attainment demonstration SIP, appendix M, as a means to 
establish enforceable emission limits, controls, operating parameters, 
and contingency measures to reduce lead emissions from point, area, and 
fugitive lead dust sources in support of achieving attainment of the 
2008 lead NAAQS as soon as practicable. The 2013 Consent Judgment was 
submitted as part of Missouri's SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    A brief description of the BRRF control measures and anticipated 
emissions reductions is as follows.
    a. By February 4, 2013, install a baghouse at the south refinery; 
this project is expected to reduce emissions by 98 percent.
    b. By February 4, 2013, relocate a baghouse from the sweat furnace 
to the blast furnace storage feed building; this project is expected to 
reduce emissions by 80 percent by totally enclosing the blast furnace 
feed material storage and handling, while emissions from the main stack 
will experience a slight increase from the relocation.
    c. By February 4, 2013, remove the rotary melter at the north 
refinery and connection of its baghouse to the north refinery process 
ducts; this represents an estimated 95 percent reduction in emissions 
from the previous process configuration.
    d. By February 4, 2013, install a truck tire wash system for 
outbound traffic; washing trucks is anticipated to reduce fugitive 
emissions by 95 percent.
    e. By February 4, 2013, install a pulse-jet baghouse to improve 
reverberatory furnace process ventilation; this project is expected to 
reduce reverberatory stack emissions by 45 percent and fugitives by 98 
percent.
    f. By February 4, 2013, install a dry lime SO2 scrubber 
to further process gases as they exit the pulse-jet baghouse; this 
measure is intended to control SO2, but will also reduce 
lead-containing particulates.
    g. By January 6, 2014, enclose the refinery, blast furnace, 
reverberatory furnace and dross plant buildings and install a baghouse 
to achieve the negative pressure requirement of the Secondary Lead 
Smelting MACT (40 CFR 63, subpart X); the estimated reduction in 
overall emissions from these enclosures is expected to by 98 percent.
    h. By December 31, 2013, install a 40-foot extension on the 
breaking separation and neutralization scrubber stack; the elevated 
stack height provides no net emissions decrease, but rather, greater 
dispersion of lead emissions that decreases the impact upon receptors 
within the nonattainment area.
    i. By December 31, 2013, construct a 30,000 square foot building 
extension to the existing blast feed storage building enclosure; the 
estimated emissions reduction is included in item a. above.
    j. By October 31, 2014, install ``batwing'' style ventilation 
covers to improve LEV capture efficiencies on refinery kettles; these 
covers contribute to the 98 percent emissions reduction in item g. 
above.
    k. By December 31, 2013, install quick closing powered doors at the 
north refinery warehouse, south refinery warehouse, and the entrance to 
the reverberatory feed storage building; this measure also contributes 
to the 98 percent reduction in fugitives estimated for item g. above.
    These projects have all been completed.
    In addition to the control strategies required by the 2013 Consent 
Judgment, BRRF developed a baghouse Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 
and a Work Practice Manual (WPM) to minimize lead emissions from 
operation and maintenance of all baghouses and to minimize fugitive 
dust emissions, respectively. The baghouse SOP is required by the 
Secondary Lead NESHAP and the WPM is required by both the Secondary 
Lead NESHAP and the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120. On December 18, 
2012, (see appendix J of Missouri's SIP revision) Missouri approved 
these documents. Although the baghouse SOP and WPM were prepared for 
compliance with the Secondary Lead NESHAP, and Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-
6.120, the activities required therein support the attainment of the 
2008 Lead NAAQS as well.
    The following is a list of the control measures required by 
Missouri's 2013 Consent Judgment for the Buick Mine and Mill, and the 
Casteel Mine. These control measures were implemented by Doe Run on or 
before June 1, 2013.
    a. Modify Buick Mine updraft vents 1, 2, 3 and 6 to achieve a 
vertical release, defined as 45 degrees from horizontal or greater; 
this measure improves the dispersion of lead-containing particulates.
    b. Preclude public access at the Casteel Mine at a minimum distance 
provided for in the 2013 Consent Judgment.
    c. Preclude public access at Buick Mine updraft vents 1, 2, 3 and 6 
at a minimum distance prescribed by the Consent Judgment.
    d. Preclude access to the Buick Mine and Mill at a minimum distance 
prescribed by the 2013 Consent Judgment.
    The 2011 Consent Decree between EPA, Missouri and Doe Run also 
requires enclosure of existing lead-containing material storage areas, 
interior lead concentrate conveyors, lead filtering system and 
associated equipment, lead concentrate storage stockpile, and the truck 
loading area and scale at the Buick Mine and Mill. This project was 
completed on or before September 1, 2013.
    Based on EPA's analysis of the attainment modeling and its 
outcomes, EPA believes that Missouri's control strategy implemented 
pursuant to the 2013 Consent Judgment will bring the Viburnum Trend 
area into attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress 
(RFP)

    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires nonattainment areas to 
implement all RACM, including emissions reductions through the adoption 
of Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT), as expeditiously 
as practicable. EPA interprets this as requiring all nonattainment 
areas to consider all available controls and to implement all measures 
that are determined to be reasonably available, except that measures 
which will not assist the area to more expeditiously attain the 
standard are not required to be implemented.\5\ In March 2012, EPA

[[Page 30970]]

issued guidance titled, ``Implementation of Reasonably Available 
Control Measures (RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions'' (RACM 
Guidance).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 58 FR 67751, December 22 1993, for a discussion of this 
interpretation as it relates to lead.
    \6\ https://www.epa.gov/oar/lead/pdfs/2012ImplementationGuide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires areas designated as 
nonattainment for criteria pollutants to include a demonstration of 
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) in attainment demonstrations. Section 
171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as annual incremental reductions in 
emissions of the relevant air pollutants as required by part D, or 
emission reductions that may reasonably be required by EPA to ensure 
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. Part D does 
not include specific RFP requirements for lead.
    Missouri performed a RACM analysis in compliance with the RACM 
Guidance. As stated in the final lead NAAQS rule, RFP is satisfied by 
the strict adherence to a compliance schedule which is expected to 
periodically yield significant emission reductions. Missouri has 
determined that existing controls and practices, combined with 
additional controls and practices required by the 2013 Consent 
Judgment, constitute RACM. The control measures have been modeled and 
demonstrated to achieve the lead NAAQS and also comply with RACM and 
RFP.
    In accordance with the Consent Judgment, all of the control 
measures for BRRF and the mines and mills have been installed to date. 
The secondary lead NESHAP requires BRRF to comply with control measures 
and work practices on or before January 6, 2014. Further, Missouri rule 
10 CSR 10-6.120 requires BRRF to implement the WPM and places 
production limits on the facility. Collectively, these control measures 
and practices exceed the requirements of EPA's RACT Guidance.
    RFP is addressed by the control strategy occurring in a timeframe 
consistent with the CAA and the 2013 Consent Judgment. Upon 
implementation of the control strategy and practices described above, 
ambient air quality concentrations are expected to drop at or below 
attainment levels immediately after implementation of the control 
strategy. Air monitoring data indicate that all of the nonattainment 
area's ambient air quality monitors reported lead (Pb) concentrations 
below the 2008 lead NAAQS for the three-month rolling average for 
February through May 2014. See https://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/leadmonitordata.pdf. For the rolling calendar quarter of April through 
June 2014, and May through July, the Buick North monitor violated the 
NAAQS due to a power outage on June 22, 2014, that impacted air 
pollution control equipment. This violation did not trigger contingency 
measures because the 2013 Consent Judgment does not require the 
facility to begin monitoring attainment of the lead NAAQS until the 
rolling calendar quarter following installation of all control 
measures, which is November 2014 through January 2015. For the rolling 
calendar quarters starting in July through December 2014, the facility 
is attaining the lead NAAQS.
    EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting sections 
172(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the CAA.

F. Attainment Demonstration

    CAA section 172 requires a state to submit a plan for each of its 
nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment of the applicable 
ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than the specified attainment date. This demonstration should 
consist of four parts: (1) Technical analyses that locate, identify, 
and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations 
of the lead NAAQS; (2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and 
air quality improvement resulting from already-adopted national, state, 
and local programs and from potential new state and local measures to 
meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area; (3) adopted 
emissions reduction measures with schedules for implementation and (4) 
contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
    The requirements for the first two parts are described in the 
sections on emissions inventories and RACM/RACT, above and in the 
sections on air quality modeling and the attainment demonstration that 
follows immediately below. Requirements for the third and fourth parts 
are described in the sections on the control strategy and the 
contingency measures, respectively.
    As stated in section V.C.2. above, the future case dispersion 
modeling is the attainment demonstration used to verify that the 
proposed control strategies will bring the area into attainment. In 
order to determine whether the planned emission reduction strategies 
will result in attainment of the NAAQS, the modeled maximum lead air 
concentration (based on a rolling three-month average) is added to the 
calculated background lead concentration of 0.020 [micro]g/m\3\, the 
predicted maximum three-month rolling average lead concentration is 
0.148 [micro]g/m\3\. By comparison, the 2008 Lead NAAQS is 0.150 
[micro]g/m\3\. Therefore, Missouri's modeling demonstrates attainment 
of the standard.

G. New Source Review (NSR)

    Within the CAA, part D of title I requires SIP submittals to 
include a permit program for the construction and operation of new and 
modified major stationary sources. The current definition of 
nonattainment areas in Missouri, which for lead includes the Viburnum 
Trend area, is provided in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.020. For 
installations in a nonattainment area, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.060 
requires a permit for construction of, or major modification to, an 
installation with potential to annually emit one hundred (100) tons or 
more of a nonattainment pollutant, or a permit for a modification at a 
major source with potential to annually emit one thousand two hundred 
(1,200) pounds of lead. Both rules have previously been approved by EPA 
as part of the SIP, as meeting the requirements of section 173 of the 
CAA, and EPA implementing rules at 40 CFR 51.165. (78 FR 19602; 78 FR 
37457).

H. Contingency Measures

    As required by CAA section 172(c)(9), the SIP submittal includes 
contingency measures to be implemented if EPA determines that the area 
has failed to make RFP or if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by 
December 2015. If the air quality data for any three-month rolling 
period after the implementation of the control measures identified in 
the 2013 Consent Judgment exceeds the 0.15 ug/m\3\ three-month rolling 
average lead standard, BRRF shall implement the contingency measures 
set forth in the 2013 Consent Judgment. Missouri may also require 
implementation of contingency measures if Doe Run fails to implement 
the control strategy projects in accordance with the 2013 Consent 
Judgment.
    The 2013 Consent Judgment contains the following contingency 
measures which apply to BRRF:
    a. Ventilate the reverberatory feed storage building with a minimum 
design to achieve a negative pressure of 0.02 inches Hg within nine 
months' notice from Missouri.
    b. Within a time frame to be determined by Missouri and BRRF, BRRF 
shall submit a work plan for a study to determine the best practices 
and best available control technology to achieve compliance with the 
2008 Lead NAAQS. The study shall be completed and submitted to Missouri 
within 180 days from Missouri's approval of the

[[Page 30971]]

work plan. Within 60 days from receipt of the study, Missouri shall 
advise BRRF of whether the projects and timelines for implementation 
proposed by the study are acceptable. Upon Missouri's approval or 60 
days with no comment, the projects identified by the study shall be 
implemented in accordance with the timeline therein and shall become a 
fully enforceable part of the 2013 Consent Judgment.
    c. Pave inbound truck parking lot within 18 months of notice from 
Missouri of a 2008 Lead NAAQS violation.
    d. Within a timeframe to be developed by Missouri and BRRF, BRRF 
shall submit and evaluation of the main baghouse capacity and will 
identify any projects that are deemed technically feasible and cost-
effective to redistribute any excess capacity identified in the 
evaluation and for inclusion as contingency measures and provide an 
implementation timeframe. Within 60 days of receipt of the evaluation, 
Missouri will advise BRRF whether the projects and timelines are 
acceptable. Upon approval or after 60 days, the projects identified in 
the baghouse capacity study shall become an enforceable part of the 
2013 Consent Judgment.
    The contingency measures listed above shall be implemented upon 
notice from Missouri of a Lead NAAQS violation and shall be implemented 
in the order listed above for each subsequent Lead NAAQS violation 
should additional violations occur.
    BRRF must notify Missouri within ten (10) days of completion of any 
contingency measure. Sixty days (60) after completion, BRRF will 
propose an additional qualified contingency measure to be added to the 
2013 Consent Judgment, which will become part of the 2013 Consent 
Judgment and fully enforceable upon approval by Missouri. These 
additional contingency measures will also be subject to EPA approval as 
part of the SIP.
    Doe Run or BRRF may also substitute new control(s) for the 
identified contingency measure(s) if Doe Run or BRRF identifies and 
demonstrates to Missouri and EPA's satisfaction that the alternative 
control measure(s) would achieve attainment with the 2008 lead NAAQS. 
The 2013 Consent Judgment also allows Doe Run or BRRF to change the 
order of implementation for contingency measures and time frames for 
completion upon approval by Missouri.
    Changes to contingency measures would require a public hearing at 
the state level and EPA approval as a formal SIP revision. Until such 
time as EPA approves any substitute measure, the measures included in 
the approved SIP will be the enforceable measure. EPA does not intend 
to approve any substitutions that cannot be implemented in the same 
timeframe as the original measure. These measures will help ensure 
compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS as well as meet the requirements of 
section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as 
meeting section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

I. Enforceability

    As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the 
CAA, and 57 FR 13556, all measures and other elements in the SIP must 
be enforceable by the state and EPA. The enforceable document included 
in Missouri's SIP submittal is the 2013 Consent Judgment. The 2013 
Consent Judgment contains all control and contingency measures with 
enforceable dates for implementation. The only exception relates to the 
Federally enforceable dates found in the 2011 Consent Decree. The 2013 
Consent Judgment also includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements to ensure that the control and contingency measures are 
met. The state adopted the 2013 Consent Judgment into Missouri's state 
regulations on June 19, 2013, making it state-enforceable. Upon EPA 
approval of the SIP submission, the 2013 Consent Judgment will become 
state and Federally enforceable, and enforceable by citizens under 
section 304 of the CAA.
    We note that the 2013 Consent Judgment also contains provisions for 
stipulated penalties should Doe Run or BRRF fail to comply with 
provisions of the 2013 Consent Judgment. The 2011 Consent Decree also 
contains stipulated penalty provisions. EPA is not bound by the state's 
2013 Consent Judgment penalties. With regard to matters that are 
addressed by the 2011 Consent Decree, EPA may enforce against 
violations of this document under section 113 of the CAA or other 
Federal authorities, rather than the 2013 Consent Judgment, if EPA 
approves the 2013 Consent Judgment, as proposed in this action, into 
the SIP.
    EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting sections 
172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556.

VI. Review of Revision to Missouri Rule Restricting Lead Emissions From 
Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations

A. Background

    Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution 
regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality 
meets the NAAQS established by EPA. In order for the state regulations 
to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, states must 
formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with 
state and Federal requirements. States submit adopted rules and 
revisions to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. State rules and revisions 
approved by EPA under section 110 authority are incorporated into the 
Federally-approved and enforceable SIP.
    As discussed above in paragraph I, Background, Missouri rule 10 CSR 
10-6.120 ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead 
Smelter--Refinery Installations'', establishes lead emissions limits 
from stacks at specific lead smelters including the Herculaneum 
facility in Herculaneum, Missouri, and BRRF in Boss, Missouri.
    For enforceability, the Viburnum Trend area lead NAAQS attainment 
SIP relies upon the production limit imposed by Missouri rule 10 CSR 
10-6.120, recordkeeping requirements, and test methods. The approval of 
the revision to the rule relies upon the modeling demonstration 
proposed in the lead NAAQS attainment SIP to demonstrate that the 
production limits will result in emissions limits that meet the 
standard. A technical analysis of the production limits proposed, 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and the test methods 
prescribed is conducted in the EPA Technical Support Document (TSD), 
which is included in the docket as materials relied upon for this 
proposed action. An abbreviated discussion of the information in the 
EPA TSD is discussed below.

B. Analysis of Production and Emissions Limits

    As stated above, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120(B)(2) limits 
production at BRRF to 175,000 tons of Pb per year, and is consistent 
with the limit imposed by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) permit issued to the facility. However, the Pb emissions from the 
present operations are significantly less than the previous operational 
configuration in the PSD permit. This is due to the elimination of the 
Rotary Melter, and the addition of control measures listed in Section 
5.1 of the SIP

[[Page 30972]]

document, including two new baghouses, enclosure of the facility's 
process and materials handling areas under negative pressure to achieve 
the Secondary Lead NESHAP, and additional work practice standards also 
to comply with the NESHAP.
    The Viburnum Trend area lead NAAQS attainment SIP and supporting 
Consent Judgment specify Stack Emission Limits required to attain the 
2008 Pb NAAQS (see table 4, Stack Emission Limits). Although Missouri 
rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 establishes the maximum Pb production limit for 
BRRF rather than a specific emission limitation by stack, the Pb 
production limit, or throughput, correlates with the stack emission 
limits modeled in the SIP. The emissions limits by source are detailed 
in appendix H of the attainment demonstration SIP.
    The modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP are 
176,482 tons of Pb produced per year. Thus, the ``Future'' case 
modeling demonstrates that under conservative production rates (i.e., 
slightly higher than the maximum allowable by the revised Missouri 
rule), the facility still attains the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    As discussed in paragraph V.C. above, EPA has conducted an 
independent analysis of Missouri's attainment SIP modeling and has 
determined that the control measures will result in attainment of the 
2008 lead NAAQS. The detailed analysis, contained in EPA's TSD, of the 
Pb production limits for BRRF imposed by Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 
demonstrates that they correspond with the SIP control measures, 
expressed as stack emission limits, imposed by the Viburnum Trend area 
lead NAAQS attainment SIP and supporting Consent Judgment and will 
provide for attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. As demonstrated above, the 
revision to the Missouri SIP does not interfere with attainment and 
reasonable further progress.
    Pursuant to the March 4, 2015, withdrawal request from Missouri, 
EPA is not taking action on Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120, General 
Provision (3)(B)1, which limits main stack, number 7 and 9 baghouse 
stack and number 8 baghouse stack lead emissions at the Doe Run primary 
lead smelter-refinery in Herculaneum, Missouri.\7\ In addition, EPA is 
not taking action on Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120, General Provision 
(3)(B)2., which limits main stack lead emissions at BRRF to 0.00087 
grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) of air. Missouri has 
withdrawn its request for approval of these limits into the SIP because 
they no longer represent operating conditions at the facility and are 
higher than the secondary lead NESHAP, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Missouri's State Implementation Plan for the Jefferson 
County Lead Nonattainment Area and associated lead emissions limits 
for ongoing refinery operations at the Doe Run Refinery in 
Herculaneum, Missouri were approved by EPA on October 20, 2014. 79 
FR 62574.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Work Practice Manual (WPM)

    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120(3)(C) contains the requirements for 
both the Herculaneum facility and BRRF to control fugitive emissions of 
lead from all process and area sources by work practices. The work 
practices are required to be submitted to the state in the form of a 
WPM for the state director's review and approval.
    Any change to the WPM requires state director approval and the 
change shall not lessen the effectiveness of the fugitive emission 
reductions for the work practice involved. Written approval by the 
director is required before any change becomes effective.
    If the director determines that a change in the WPM is warranted, 
the state director shall notify the facility in writing. The facility 
must make the required change(s) within 30 days of written notice from 
the state director.
    The requirements for the WPM are consistent with the modeled 
controls of fugitive emissions in the Viburnum Trend area attainment 
SIP. The SIP relies on the Missouri rule for implementation of work 
practices contained in the approved manual. Therefore, EPA proposes to 
approve this portion of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120.

D. Reporting and Record Keeping

    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120(4) contains the requirement for the 
Herculaneum facility and BRRF to keep records and files generated by 
the WPM's implementation. The required records include records of 
inspections conducted of fugitive emissions control equipment such as 
hoods, air ducts and exhaust fans, and records that demonstrate 
compliance with the sampling methods required for stack testing 
discussed below. These records are required to be maintained at the 
facility for a minimum of two (2) years and shall be made available to 
the state director upon request.
    The requirements for the reporting and record keeping are necessary 
to determine that the facility is operating in accordance with the 
modeled controls of fugitive emissions in the Viburnum Trend area 
attainment SIP. The SIP relies on the Missouri rule for implementation 
of work practices contained in the approved manual which are documented 
by the reporting and record keeping requirements contained therein. 
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve this portion of Missouri rule 10 CSR 
10-6.120.

E. Test Methods

    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120(5) contains the required test methods 
for stack testing in accordance with the requirements for visible 
emissions contained in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.030(9), for 
quantifying Pb in stack gases in accordance with Missouri rule 10 CSR 
10-6.030(12), and for measuring Pb in ambient air in accordance with 
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-030(12). These methods have all been determined 
to comply with the equivalent EPA Methods 12 and 29 promulgated by 40 
CFR part 60 appendix A.
    The Test Methods required by the revised Missouri rule are 
necessary to determine that the facility is complying with the stack 
emission limits imposed by the Viburnum Trend Area attainment SIP. The 
SIP relies on the Missouri rule for the Test Methods and reporting of 
the results of testing to determine compliance. Therefore, EPA proposes 
to approve this portion of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120.

VII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Missouri's attainment 
demonstration SIP for the Viburnum Trend 2008 lead NAAQS nonattainment 
area. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by Missouri satisfies the 
applicable requirements of the CAA identified in EPA's Final Rule (73 
FR 66964, October 15, 2008), and will result in attainment of the 0.15 
ug/m\3\ standard in the Viburnum Trend, Missouri, area.
    Pursuant to Missouri's March 4, 2015, withdrawal request, EPA is 
not taking action on the Doe Run primary lead smelter-refinery 
emissions limits in 10 CSR 10-6.120(3)(B)1. and table I, and the 
0.00087 gr/dscf main stack emissions limit for BRRF in 10 CSR 10-
6.120(3)(B)2. EPA proposes to approve the remaining portions of the 
revision to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 as part of Missouri's SIP.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this action, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 (with the exclusions of 
Paragraph 10-6.120 (3)(B)1. and Table 1, and the 0.00087 gr/dscf main 
stack emissions limit for

[[Page 30973]]

BRRF) described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or 
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble for more information).
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 
January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order 
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
Because this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under 
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond 
that required by state law, it 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. 
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also 
is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state 
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    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 proposed rule 
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).
    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 July 31, 2015. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not 
affect the finality of this rulemaking 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 
future rule or action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 19, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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 AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52. 1320 amend the table in paragraph (c) by revising the 
entry for Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 and the table in paragraph (d) 
by adding new entry (29) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

[[Page 30974]]



                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State effective    EPA approval
       Missouri citation                 Title                date             date             Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-6.120......................  Restriction of                 3/30/09   6/1/15 and        Paragraph (3)(B)1 and
                                 Emissions of Lead                        [Insert Federal   Table, Provision
                                 from Specific Lead                       Register          Pertaining to
                                 Smelter-Refinery                         citation].        Limitations of Lead
                                 Installations.                                             Emissions from
                                                                                            Specific
                                                                                            Installations, is
                                                                                            not approved as part
                                                                                            of the SIP.
                                                                                           The requirement to
                                                                                            limit main stack
                                                                                            lead emissions at
                                                                                            BRRF to 0.00087 gr/
                                                                                            dscf lead in
                                                                                            Paragraph (3)(B)2 is
                                                                                            not approved as part
                                                                                            of the SIP.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                            EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State effective
         Name of source           Order/permit number        date        EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(29) Doe Run Buick Resource       Consent Judgment            7/29/13   6/1/15 and [Insert   ...................
 Recycling Facility.               13IR-CC00016.                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-13128 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P