[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30965-30974]
[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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?

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

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 <IP_ADDRESS>); 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, http://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

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 http://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-

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

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\ http://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 http://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

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

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

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) * * *

                                        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


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60740-60741]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25520]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0275]

Hours of Service of Drivers: U.S. Department of Defense (DOD);
Granting of Renewal of Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemption from the
minimum 30-minute rest break provision of the Agency's hours-of-service
(HOS) regulations for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers working
under contract to the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) Military
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC). The exemption will
enable SDDC's contract motor carriers and their employee-drivers
engaged in the transportation of weapons, munitions, and sensitive/
classified cargo to have the same regulatory flexibility that 49 CFR
395.1(q) provides for drivers transporting explosives. The exempted
drivers will be allowed to use 30 minutes or more of attendance time to
meet the HOS rest break requirements, providing they do not perform any
other work during the break.

DATES: This exemption is effective from 12:01 a.m., October 22, 2015,
through 11:59 p.m., October 21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Docket. For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments submitted to notice requesting public comments on the
exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document
management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
The docket number is listed at the beginning of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    Under 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii), a property-carrying CMV driver is
prohibited from operating a CMV on a public road if more than eight
hours have passed since the end of the driver's last off duty or
sleeper-berth period of at least 30 minutes.
    SDDC's initial exemption application for relief from the HOS rest
break requirement was submitted in 2013; a copy of the application is
in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice. That 2013
application describes fully the nature of the operations of SDDC's
contracted drivers. The exemption was granted on October 28, 2013 (78
FR 64265). That exemption expires on October 21, 2015.
    Certain motor carriers under contract to the SDDC provide
protective services while transporting weapons, munitions, and
sensitive/classified cargo. SDDC requested renewal of the rest-break
exemption to allow its contract drivers to be treated the same as
drivers transporting explosives. Section 395.1(q) allows drivers of
CMVs carrying Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosives who are subject to
the requirement for a 30-minute off-duty rest break in Sec.
395.3(a)(3)(ii) to use 30 minutes or more of on-duty ``attendance
time'' to meet the requirement for a rest break, provided they perform
no other work.

 Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    SDDC stated that it requires continuous attendance and surveillance
of such shipments until they reach their final destination. SDDC also
stated that it has instituted several technical and administrative
controls to ensure the efficient transportation of cargo requiring
protective services, controls that would remain in effect under the
requested exemption. They include the following:
     Conducting review of carrier compliance requirements and
procedures for moving hazardous cargo.
     Evaluating carrier authority to operate on U.S. roadways.
     Evaluating carrier compliance with FMCSA's Compliance
Safety Accountability program and Safety Measurement System standards.
     Providing over-the-road vehicle surveillance.
     Inspecting carrier facilities and corporate headquarters
for compliance with DOD and DOT standards.
    Further details regarding SDDC's safety controls can be found in
its application for exemption. The application can be accessed in the
docket identified at the beginning of this notice. SDDC asserted that
renewing the exemption would allow driver teams to manage their en
route rest periods efficiently and also perform mandated shipment
security surveillance, resulting in both safe driving performance and
greater security of cargo during long-distance trips.
    SDDC anticipates no safety impacts from this exemption and believes
that its contract employee drivers should be allowed to follow the
requirements in Sec.  395.1(q) when transporting shipments of sensitive
DOD cargo. SDDC believes that shipments made under the requested
exemption would achieve a level of safety and security that is at least
equivalent to that which would be obtained by following the normal
break requirement in Sec.  395.3(a)(3)(ii).
    SDDC indicated that approximately 1,942 power units and 3,000
drivers would currently be eligible for the exemption, if renewed. The
exemption would be effective for 2 years, the maximum period allowed by
Sec.  381.300. SDDC reported two crashes in 2014 in which drivers were
cited. Neither crash was connected to fatigue that was related to the
30 minute break.

Public Comments

    On April 16, 2015, FMCSA published notice of this application, and
asked for public comment (80 FR 20556). No comments were submitted to
the public docket.

FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated SDDC's application for renewal of the
exemption. The Agency believes that SDDC will likely achieve a level of
safety that is equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety
achieved without the exemption [49 CFR 381.305(a)]. The exempted
drivers will receive 30 minutes or more of rest when required since
they will be free of all duties other than ``attending'' the vehicle
during the break periods. The safety objectives of the break
requirement will be met; the only subject of the exemption is the duty
status of the driver while attending the vehicle during a required rest
break. Therefore, the Agency grants the exemption request subject to
the terms and conditions in this Federal Register notice.

Terms of the Exemption

    1. Drivers authorized by SDDC to utilize this exemption must have a
copy of this exemption document in their possession while operating
under the terms of the exemption. The exemption document must be
presented to law enforcement officials upon request.
    2. All motor carriers operating under this exemption must have a
``Satisfactory'' safety rating with FMCSA, or be ``unrated;'' motor
carriers with ``Conditional'' or ``Unsatisfactory'' FMCSA safety
ratings are prohibited from using this exemption.
    3. All motor carriers operating under this exemption must have
Safety Measurement System (SMS) scores below FMCSA's intervention
thresholds, as displayed at http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/sms/.

Period of the Exemption

    This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) is
granted for the period from 12:01 a.m., October 22, 2015, through 11:59
p.m., October 21, 2017.

Extent of the Exemption

    The exemption is restricted to SDDC's contract driver-employees
transporting security-sensitive materials. This exemption is limited to
the provisions of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) to allow contract driver-
employees transporting security-sensitive materials to be treated the
same as drivers transporting explosives, as provided in Sec.  395.1(q).
These drivers must comply with all other applicable provisions of the
FMCSRs.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to SDDC contract
operators in intrastate commerce.

Notification to FMCSA

    The SDDC must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident
(as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMVs
operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must
include the following information:
    a. Exemption Identity: ``SDDC,''
    b. Name of operating motor carrier and USDOT number,
    c. Date of the accident,
    d. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    e. Driver's name and driver's license number and State of issuance,
    f. Vehicle number and State license plate number,
    g. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    h. Number of fatalities,
    i. The police-reported cause of the accident,
    j. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws
or motor carrier safety regulations, and
    k. The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period
prior to the accident.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Termination

    FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will
experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, should
this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public
interest, including revocation or restriction of the exemption. The
FMCSA will immediately revoke or restrict the exemption for failure to
comply with its terms and conditions.

    Issued on: September 25, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
 Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-25520 Filed 10-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 62614]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24527]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR14-4-000]

Guttman Energy, Inc., PBF Holding Company LLC v. Buckeye Pipe
Line Company, L.P., Laurel Pipe Line Company, L.P.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on October 15, 2013, Guttman Energy, Inc. and PBF
Holding Company LLC (Complainants) submitted for filing with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a complaint against
Buckeye Pipe Line Company L.P. and Laurel Pipe Line Company L.P.
(Respondents) challenging the rates charged by the Respondents for
pipeline transportation of petroleum products from Chelsea Junction,
Pennsylvania, to delivery points in Pennsylvania on the grounds that
(1) the Respondents are unlawfully charging interstate tariff rates for
intrastate transportation, (2) the pertinent interstate rates are
excessive, unjust and unreasonable, (3) the pertinent market-based
rates of Buckeye are no longer justified because, as a result of
changed circumstances, Buckeye does not, in fact, lack significant
market power, and (4) the Respondents' collection of interstate rates
which are higher than intrastate rates for the same service is unduly
and unreasonably preferential and discriminatory, all in violation of
the Interstate Commerce Act.
    The Complainants state that copies of the complaint were served on
the Respondents.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 4, 2013.

    Dated: October 15, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24527 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P