Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52701 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 20, 2010. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21384 Filed 8–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2008–0538; FRL–9193–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to grant full 

approval of Missouri’s attainment 

demonstration State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) and control strategy for the 

lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area 

of Herculaneum, Missouri. This 

proposed action supplements the 

proposed conditional approval 

published by EPA on October 8, 2008, 

and explains why EPA now believes full 

approval is appropriate. The applicable 

standard addressed in this action is the 

lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 

1978. EPA believes that the SIP 

submitted by the state satisfies the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act identified in EPA’s October 2008 

proposal, and demonstrates attainment 

of the 1.5 microgram per cubic meter 

(μg/m3) lead NAAQS in the 

Herculaneum, Missouri area. This 

action does not address any obligations 

which Missouri may have relative to the 

revised lead NAAQS promulgated by 

EPA in 2008. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2008–0538, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: jay.michael@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Michael Jay, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Michael Jay, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 

66101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2008– 

0538. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

e-mail 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 Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, 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: 

Michael Jay at (913) 551–7460, or e-mail 

him at jay.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or 

‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The SIP Process 

1. What is a SIP? 

2. What is the Federal approval process for 

a SIP? 

3. What does Federal approval of a state 

regulation mean to me? 

B. Background for the Proposal 

II. Summary of the State Submittal 

1. Plant Ventilation Design 

2. Ventilation Study Objectives 

3. Ventilation Study Results 

4. Ventilation Limits 

5. Ongoing Ventilation Testing and 

Reporting Requirements 

6. Winter Construction Work Practices 

Manual Modification 

7. Enforceability 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

52702 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

I. Background 

A. The SIP Process 

1. What is a SIP? 

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) requires states to develop air 

pollution regulations and control 

strategies to ensure that state air quality 

meets the national ambient air quality 

standards established by EPA. These 

ambient standards are established under 

section 109 of the CAA, and they 

currently address six criteria pollutants. 

These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, 

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. 

Each state must submit these 

regulations and control strategies to us 

for approval and incorporation into the 

Federally-enforceable SIP. Each 

Federally-approved SIP protects air 

quality primarily by addressing air 

pollution at its point of origin. These 

SIPs can be extensive, containing state 

regulations or other enforceable 

documents and supporting information 

such as emission inventories, 

monitoring networks, and modeling 

demonstrations. 

2. What is the Federal approval process 

for a SIP? 

In order for state regulations to be 

incorporated into the Federallyenforceable SIP, states must formally 

adopt the regulations and control 

strategies consistent with state and 

Federal requirements. This process 

generally includes a public notice, 

public hearing, public comment period, 

and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body. 

Once a state rule, regulation, or 

control strategy is adopted, the state 

submits it to EPA for inclusion into the 

Federally-approved SIP. We must 

provide public notice and seek 

additional public comment regarding 

the proposed Federal action on the state 

submission. If adverse comments are 

received, they must be addressed prior 

to any final Federal action by EPA. 

All state regulations and supporting 

information approved by EPA under 

section 110 of the CAA are incorporated 

into the Federally-approved SIP. 

Records of such SIP actions are 

maintained in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52, 

entitled Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans. The actual state 

regulations which are approved are not 

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR 

outright but are incorporated by 

reference, which means that EPA has 

approved a given state regulation with 

a specific effective date. 

3. What does Federal approval of a state 

regulation mean to me? 

Enforcement of the state regulation 

before and after it is incorporated into 

the Federally-approved SIP is primarily 

a state responsibility. However, after the 

regulation is Federally approved, EPA is 

authorized to take enforcement action 

against violators. Citizens are also 

offered legal recourse to address 

violations as described in section 304 of 

the CAA. 

B. Background for the Proposal 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) established the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead 

on October 5, 1978 (43 FR 46246). The 

1978 NAAQS for lead is set at a level 

of 1.5 micrograms (μg) of lead per cubic 

meter (m3) of air, averaged over a 

calendar quarter. The Herculaneum, 

Missouri area is designated 

nonattainment for the 1978 lead 

NAAQS. On November 12, 2008, EPA 

revised the lead NAAQS (73 FR 66964), 

lowering the level to 0.15 μg/m3

calculated over a three-month rolling 

average. Missouri is required to bring 

any nonattainment areas into attainment 

of the 2008 lead NAAQS according to 

the timeline established in the Clean Air 

Act and in the November 12, 2008 final 

rulemaking. The final rulemaking also 

specifies that the 1.5 μg/m3 standard 

will not be revoked for any current 

nonattainment area until the affected 

area submits, and EPA approves, an 

attainment demonstration which 

addresses the attainment of the new 

0.15 μg/m3 Pb NAAQS. EPA has not yet 

designated areas with respect to the 

2008 NAAQS. 

This rulemaking proposes approval of 

the Missouri SIP to bring the 

Herculaneum area into attainment of the 

1.5 μg/m3 NAAQS. However, although 

EPA believes this SIP is directionally 

correct in terms of achieving reductions 

in lead emissions, this proposed action 

does not address any future obligation 

of the state to address the revised 

standard. 

During the 1980s and 1990s, Missouri 

submitted and EPA approved a number 

of SIP revisions for lead to address 

ambient lead concentrations in various 

areas of the state. One such area was 

Herculaneum, Missouri, where a 

primary lead smelter has been in 

operation since 1892. The primary lead 

smelter is currently owned and operated 

by the Doe Run Resources Company 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Doe Run’’). Doe 

Run-Herculaneum is the only currently 

operating primary lead smelter in the 

United States. 

The Herculaneum area was 

designated nonattainment for lead in 

1991 (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991, 

codified at 40 CFR 81.326), pursuant to 

new authorities provided by the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990. The state 

also became subject to new SIP 

requirements under part D, Title I of the 

Act, added by the 1990 amendments. A 

revised SIP meeting the part D 

requirements was subsequently 

submitted in 1994. The plan established 

June 30, 1995, as the date by which the 

Herculaneum area was to attain 

compliance with the lead standard. 

However, the plan did not result in 

attainment of the standard and 

monitored ambient air lead 

concentrations in the Herculaneum area 

continued to show exceedances of the 

standard. Therefore, on August 15, 

1997, after taking and responding to 

public comments, EPA published a 

notice in the Federal Register (62 FR 

43647) finding that the Herculaneum 

nonattainment area had failed to attain 

the lead standard by the June 30, 1995, 

deadline. 

On January 10, 2001, Missouri 

submitted a revised SIP to EPA for the 

Herculaneum area. The SIP contained 

control measures to reduce lead 

emissions to attain the standard, 

including building enclosure and 

ventilation projects, implementation of 

work practice standards, process 

throughput restrictions and hours of 

operation limitations. As required by 

section 172(c)(9) of the Act, the plan 

also included contingency measures to 

be implemented in the event that there 

were future exceedances of the lead 

standard in Herculaneum. These 

consisted of additional building 

enclosures and process controls, and a 

production curtailment measure. A 2000 

Work Practices Manual, 2001 Consent 

Judgment, and Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.120 ‘‘Restriction of Emissions of Lead 

from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery 

Installations’’ were also included as part 

of the SIP submittal. The SIP established 

August 14, 2002, as the attainment date 

for the area. The plan included 

permitting, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements, an emissions inventory, 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable, provided 

for attainment of the NAAQS as 

demonstrated using modeling, 

provisions for reasonable further 

progress and implementation of 

contingency measures, and assurances 

that the state would be able to 

implement the plan, thereby satisfying 

the CAA section 172(c) nonattainment 

plan provision requirements. EPA 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52703 

approved the SIP on April 16, 2002 (67 

FR 18497). 

Doe Run and the Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources (MDNR) operate 

co-located monitors at the Main Street/ 

City Hall monitoring location, and in 

several other lead monitoring locations 

in the nonattainment area. These 

monitors are used to show whether or 

not the area is in attainment of the 

standard. Following the August 2002 

attainment date, the Herculaneum area 

monitored attainment of the lead 

standard for 10 consecutive calendar 

quarters. In 2005, air quality monitors in 

the area again reported exceedances of 

the 1.5 μg/m3 lead NAAQS in the first 

two calendar quarters in 2005. 

Monitored values are quality assured by 

MDNR and properly entered into the Air 

Quality System, EPA’s repository for 

ambient air monitoring data. The values 

for the first two quarters of 2005 exceed 

the 1.5 μg/m3 lead standard and, 

therefore, constitute violations of the 

standard for each quarter. 

In accordance with the plan approved 

in 2002, a violation would trigger 

implementation of a contingency 

measure. The first set of contingency 

measures, consisting of additional 

building enclosures and process 

controls, was fully implemented by Doe 

Run prior to any monitored exceedances 

of the lead NAAQS. The second 

contingency measure, a production 

curtailment, was implemented 

following exceedance of the lead 

standard in the first and second 

calendar quarters of 2005. Despite 

implementation of all contingency 

measures, air monitors in Herculaneum 

recorded values above the 1.5 μg/m3

lead standard in the third quarter of 

2005. 

Because the exceedance recorded in 

the third quarter of 2005 occurred 

despite implementation of all the 

control measures contained in the SIP, 

including all contingency measures 

developed and implemented to address 

exceedances, EPA proposed a SIP call 

on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75093). 

The SIP call proposed to find the SIP 

substantially inadequate to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS for lead and 

proposed to require the state to revise 

the lead SIP for Herculaneum. 

EPA finalized the SIP call on April 14, 

2006 (71 FR 19432). The SIP call 

notified the state of EPA’s finding that 

the SIP was substantially inadequate to 

provide for attainment and maintenance 

of the lead NAAQS in Herculaneum, 

and required the state to submit a 

revised SIP. Section 110(k)(5) of the 

CAA provides that after EPA makes a 

finding that a plan is substantially 

inadequate, it may establish a 

reasonable deadline for correcting the 

deficiencies, but the date can be no later 

than 18 months after the state is notified 

of the finding. Based on a number of 

considerations detailed in the final rule, 

the SIP call required submission of the 

revisions within twelve months 

following date of signature of the final 

rulemaking. 

Along with a deadline for SIP 

submittal by the state to EPA, the final 

SIP call established the date by which 

the state must demonstrate attainment 

of the standard in Herculaneum. 

Sections 110(k)(5) and 172(d) of the Act 

provide that EPA may adjust any SIP 

deadlines that are applicable under the 

Act, except that the attainment date may 

not be adjusted unless it has elapsed. 

For Herculaneum, the attainment date 

had been August 2002 (five years after 

the state was notified that the area failed 

to attain). The attainment date had 

elapsed, and the area was not attaining 

the standard. The attainment date could 

therefore be adjusted pursuant to 

section 110(k)(5) and section 172(d) of 

the Act, and the state was required to 

provide a plan for attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable. Based on 

information described in the final SIP 

call rule, EPA established an attainment 

date of April 7, 2008, two years from the 

date of signature of the final rulemaking. 

MDNR formally commented in support 

of the timelines contained in the SIP 

call, including the SIP submittal 

deadline and attainment date. 

EPA required MDNR to submit several 

specific plan elements to EPA in order 

to correct the inadequacy of the SIP. 

These specific elements were: (1) A 

revised emissions inventory, (2) a 

modeling demonstration showing what 

reductions would be needed to bring the 

area back into attainment of the lead 

NAAQS, (3) adoption of measures to 

achieve the reductions determined 

necessary by the modeled attainment 

demonstration, with enforceable 

schedules for implementing the 

measures as expeditiously as 

practicable, and (4) contingency 

measures meeting the requirements of 

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. 

MDNR completed its revision to the 

SIP, and on April 26, 2007, the Missouri 

Air Conservation Commission approved 

the SIP revision after completing the 

required public notification, public 

hearing and comment period. On May 

31, 2007, EPA received Missouri’s 

revised SIP for the Herculaneum area. 

MDNR submitted supplemental 

information to EPA on March 19, 2008. 

On October 8, 2008, EPA proposed 

conditional approval of Missouri’s SIP 

submission (see 73 FR 58913). EPA 

stated that the proposal to conditionally 

approve the SIP was due to the lack of 

enforceable conditions associated with 

one of the control measures. It provided 

a process to establish ventilation 

requirements, but MDNR had not yet 

specified these requirements. The 

ventilation study and resulting 

enforceable conditions and reduction in 

building fugitive emissions are 

significant elements of the proposed 

control strategy, and these projected 

emissions reductions contribute 

significantly to the control strategy 

modeling showing attainment. EPA did 

not believe it was appropriate to give 

full approval to the SIP until the 

ventilation study and associated 

enforceable conditions were submitted 

by the state, reviewed by EPA, and 

made available for public comment. 

EPA proposed conditional approval of 

the SIP as it provided substantial 

progress toward improving air quality, 

and the state asserted that it would 

adopt and submit the missing elements 

to EPA no later than one year following 

any EPA approval of the plan. 

In the proposed conditional approval 

notice, EPA indicated that if Missouri 

submitted adequate ventilation control 

provisions prior to EPA taking final 

action on the proposed conditional 

approval, EPA would publish a 

supplemental proposed rule relating to 

those provisions, which might include a 

proposal to fully approve the SIP 

revision. EPA received the SIP revision 

addressing ventilation controls on 

September 3, 2009, following adoption 

by the Missouri Air Conservation 

Commission on July 29, 2009. EPA 

believes that the SIP revision contains 

enforceable ventilation conditions to 

ensure adequate building particle 

capture. Our technical review of the 

submission is detailed below. With the 

addition of this September 3, 2009 SIP 

supplemental revision, EPA proposes 

full approval of Missouri’s SIP to bring 

Herculaneum into attainment of the 1.5 

μg/m3 lead NAAQS. 

Since the SIP call was issued in April 

2006, Herculaneum air monitors have 

recorded additional exceedances of the 

quarterly lead NAAQS. In total, since 

the third calendar quarter of 2002, 

exceedances have occurred in the first, 

second, and third quarters of 2005; first, 

third, and fourth quarters of 2006; 

second and third quarters of 2007; and 

the first quarter of 2008. The SIP 

submittal establishes April 7, 2008, as 

the attainment date and requires 

implementation of all measures required 

for attainment by that date. Since the 

first quarter of 2008, Herculaneum has 

not exceeded the 1.5 μg/m3 NAAQS. 

EPA received one set of comments on 

the proposed conditional approval. EPA 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

52704 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

will respond to this set of comments, as 

well as any additional comments 

relating to this supplemental proposal, 

at the time EPA takes final action. In 

this proposed action, EPA seeks 

comments on the state’s September 3, 

2009, submission, particularly on the 

ventilation requirements, and on EPA’s 

supplemental proposal to fully approve 

the state’s attainment demonstration 

and control strategy SIP for 

Herculaneum. EPA believes that it has 

already provided adequate opportunity 

for comment on the other aspects of the 

SIP submittal (the May 31, 2007, 

submission) in its October 8, 2008, 

proposed rulemaking. 

II. Summary of the State Submittal 

The October 8, 2008, proposed 

conditional approval (73 FR 58913) 

contains extensive discussion on 

Missouri’s SIP submittal received to that 

point. The proposed action includes 

discussion on model selection, 

meteorological and emissions inventory 

input data, modeling results, control 

strategy, contingency measures, and 

enforceability, among other elements. 

For information on these elements, 

please refer to the October 8, 2008 

Federal Register (73 FR 58913) and 

associated docket. 

The September 3, 2009 SIP revision 

supplements the May 2007 SIP, and 

meets the last outstanding requirements 

of the 2007 Consent Judgment. The 

Consent Judgment contains control 

requirements, associated 

implementation schedules, and 

contingency measures, and is included 

as an enforceable document under the 

SIP. One of the Consent Judgment 

controls requires Doe Run to execute a 

ventilation study for the Sinter 

Building, Blast Furnace Building, and 

Refinery Building. Building openings, 

ventilation sources with either 

continuous or varying rates of operation, 

and a procedure for measuring inflow 

into the buildings must be identified 

within the study. The study must also 

include enforceable conditions 

developed to ensure that particles 

emitted within the process buildings are 

being appropriately captured by the 

ventilation systems. 

The ventilation study works together 

with door closure and building siding 

inspection requirements to achieve an 

overall objective, or control measure, of 

effective building enclosure. By 

minimizing building openings and 

ensuring adequate ventilation, the 

buildings will be operated and 

maintained in such a fashion as to 

minimize fugitive emissions from the 

buildings. The SIP requires this overall 

building enclosure control measure, and 

also requires adequate ventilation in 

each of the process buildings under the 

ventilation study element. The control 

strategy modeling attributes a control 

efficiency to the overall building 

enclosure control measure, and this 

control efficiency is included in all 

attainment demonstration calculations. 

EPA believes that the September 3, 

2009 supplemental SIP submittal 

contains the necessary enforceable 

conditions associated with the 

ventilation study to ensure that the 

ventilation-related control measures are 

met. MDNR and Doe Run conducted a 

series of tests to ensure adequate inflow 

at specific ventilation rates. These rates 

are proposed as enforceable conditions. 

MDNR has also revised the Work 

Practices Manual to include additional 

recordkeeping, compliance monitoring, 

and corrective action requirements 

associated with building ventilation. In 

addition, MDNR has revised the Work 

Practices Manual to include language to 

minimize the occurrence of construction 

when temperatures are below 39 degrees 

Fahrenheit. This should decrease 

construction when the plant watering 

system, a control measure to decrease 

in-plant road dust, cannot be operated. 

The supplemental SIP includes Work 

Practices Manual revision language 

(Attachment E in the docket), as well as 

a new Consent Judgment attachment 

(Attachment M in the docket). The 

submittal of the Work Practices Manual 

language as part of the supplemental SIP 

constitutes an official revision to the 

Work Practices Manual. These revisions 

will be enforceable by EPA if approved 

into the SIP. 

1. Plant Ventilation Design 

The smelter at Herculaneum has three 

process buildings: The Sinter Building, 

the Blast Furnace Building, and the 

Refinery Building. Each building 

contains ventilation for specific process 

units as well as baghouses that service 

the overall buildings. 

The Sinter Building contains a 

number of baghouses and process 

ventilation systems. Once concentrate is 

delivered from the mines and mills to 

the smelter, the concentrate is processed 

through the sinter plant. The 

concentrate is mixed and crushed with 

other feedstock materials such as silica, 

iron ore, and limestone fluxes. Recycled 

process material such as returned sinter, 

blast furnace slag, and baghouse fume 

may also be added to this mixture to 

produce the sinter feed. A thin layer of 

sinter feed enters the sinter machine 

and is ignited by a series of natural gas 

burners. A main sinter feed layer is then 

laid on top of this ignition layer. This 

layered sinter bed enters the updraft 

portion of the sinter machine, where air 

is drawn across the sinter bed from the 

bottom to the top, driving the thermal 

reaction. The lead sulfide contained in 

the feed is oxidized, producing lead 

oxide and releasing sulfur dioxide. Offgasses from the sintering process are 

sent to a baghouse which removes 

particulate matter. The off-gasses 

continue on to the acid plant where 

sulfur dioxide is recovered as sulfuric 

acid. The sinter machine produces a 

continuous feed of sinter cake (also 

called sinter roast) which is crushed and 

sorted by size. The larger pieces are 

transported to the blast furnace or to 

temporary storage, while the undersized 

pieces return to the mix room to await 

reprocessing through the sinter 

machine. 

Baghouses servicing the Mix Drum, 

Crusher, Cooler, Cage Paktor, 76′′ 

Smooth Rolls, and conveyor CV22 

capture and scrub air (remove particles) 

from specific parts of the sintering 

process. The #6 Baghouse scrubs the air 

that circulates within the Sinter 

Building itself. Flows from all seven of 

these units combine to be released out 

of the main stack. This combined flow 

is termed the Sinter Plant Combination 

Trail. Within the Sinter Building the 

sinter machine wheel tunnel also has its 

own dedicated ventilation system. This 

system prevents hot gases containing 

lead particles from escaping out the 

sides of the conveyor while the sinter 

feed is processed through the sinter 

machine. Air captured by the sinter 

machine wheel tunnel ventilation 

system is sent to the #3 Baghouse for 

scrubbing. Air is also pulled from the 

top of the conveyor into the #3 

Baghouse. After being treated in the 

Acid Plant, off-gases from the sinter 

machine join the stream of scrubbed air 

emerging from the #3 Baghouse. This 

entire stream is then sent through the 

main stack. See ‘‘Sinter Building 

Ventilation Diagram’’ in the docket for a 

visual depiction of this ventilation 

system. 

After processing through the Sinter 

Building, sinter cake is smelted in Doe 

Run-Herculaneum’s two blast furnaces. 

The sinter cake is mixed with coke and 

other feed materials and transferred to 

the top of a furnace. Air feeds through 

the bottom of the furnace, resulting in 

coke combustion. The coke combustion 

heats the sinter cake to approximately 

3,000 degrees Fahrenheit and produces 

carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide 

reacts with lead and other metal oxides 

to produce molten lead, waste slag, and 

carbon dioxide. The lead bullion settles 

to the bottom of the furnace, where it is 

tapped into holding pots and transferred 

to the drossing area for further refining. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52705 

The slag (a sand-like byproduct with 

small amounts of lead, copper, zinc, and 

other materials) floats to the top of the 

furnace, is tapped off and either 

recycled into the sinter feed or 

transported to the slag storage area at 

the south end of the facility. 

Air pulled from the conveyor (CV) 10 

Grizzley, CV10, CV11, CV12, CV13, 

CV14, the Scale Belt, Crow’s Nest, ‘‘D’’ 

Kettle, and Furnace Front is sent to the 

#5 Baghouse. Air from the CV leg is sent 

to the #8 Baghouse for scrubbing, while 

air from the Blast Furnace feed floor 

goes to the #6 Baghouse. General air that 

circulates throughout the Blast Furnace 

Building and is not captured by any 

process ventilation is sent to the #7 

Baghouse. (See ‘‘Blast Furnace Building 

Ventilation Diagram’’ in the docket for a 

visual depiction of this ventilation 

system.) 

After the blast furnace, molten lead 

bullion is transferred to one of four large 

drossing kettles where it is allowed to 

cool. As the bullion cools, copper, 

nickel, and other impurities are 

skimmed from the surface layer. Next, 

the decopperized lead is transferred to 

a series of natural gas-heated refining 

kettles where additional impurities are 

removed. 

Kettles 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 have their 

own ventilation systems which capture 

emissions that may escape during the 

heating, separation, and skimming 

processes. Each kettle ventilation 

system feeds into the #8 Baghouse, 

where the air collected from the kettles 

is scrubbed for particulate. The air that 

circulates within the Refinery Building 

itself is pulled into the #9 Baghouse for 

scrubbing before exiting out a stack. 

(See ‘‘Refinery Building Ventilation 

Diagram’’ in the docket for a visual 

depiction of this ventilation system.) 

2. Ventilation Study Objectives 

Under the 2007 Consent Judgment, 

Doe Run was required to conduct a 

ventilation study to establish 

enforceable flow rates and/or fan 

amperes to ensure adequate particle 

capture within the smelter’s process 

buildings. (See, Section 2.A.20 of the 

2007 Consent Judgment, included in the 

docket.) 

As described in the October 8, 2008, 

proposed conditional approval 

rulemaking (73 FR 58913), data from 

Herculaneum has shown that building 

fugitives (air that escapes out of the 

building without first being processed 

through a control device, such as a 

baghouse) can significantly impact the 

concentration of lead in ambient air in 

Herculaneum. The objective of the 

ventilation study is to minimize 

building fugitives by ensuring the 

ventilation systems within each process 

building are sufficient to adequately 

capture particles released within the 

process buildings. Also, the ventilation 

study identifies flow rate or fan 

amperage requirements sufficient to 

minimize building fugitives. These flow 

rates and fan amperes must then be 

made enforceable. 

In order to show the ventilation 

systems are adequate, Doe Run tested 

inflow at all building openings. The face 

velocity of 200 fpm has been identified 

as a critical velocity in the capture of 

particulates by the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigeration, and AirConditioning Engineers. EPA Method 

204, ‘‘Criteria For and Verification of a 

Permanent or Temporary Total 

Enclosure,’’ also requires that ‘‘the 

average facial velocity (FV) of air 

through all natural draft openings 

(NDOs) shall be at least 3,600 m/hr (200 

fpm). The direction of air flow through 

all NDO’s shall be into the enclosure.’’ 

A face velocity of 200 fpm at all 

building openings is therefore used to 

verify that ventilation is adequate to 

ensure particulates are not escaping out 

of building openings. Doe Run 

demonstrated that it achieves a 200 feet 

per minute (fpm) inflow at all building 

openings when the ventilation systems 

are run at the proposed minimum flows. 

Before setting minimum flows, the 

critical ventilation points of interest 

were identified. Doe Run’s process 

building ventilation systems have many 

components. To ensure adequate 

building ventilation, Doe Run measured 

fans or groups of fans whose proper 

operation would provide sufficient draft 

to achieve the required inflow. In some 

instances, Doe Run was able to directly 

measure ventilation flow rates. In these 

cases, a flow rate requirement was set 

instead of a fan amperage requirement. 

For the Sinter Building, the key points 

of measurement are the sinter machine 

wheel tunnel flow, #3 Baghouse flow 

just after it exits the #3 Baghouse (after 

the flow from the Acid Plant joins the 

#3 Baghouse flow), the #6 Baghouse 

flow, and the Sinter Plant Combination 

flow. For the Blast Furnace Building, 

the #5 Baghouse, #6 Baghouse, #7 

Baghouse, and #8 Baghouse flows are 

critical. In the Refinery Building, the 

critical flows include the #8 Baghouse 

and #9 Baghouse. 

3. Ventilation Study Results 

To identify building openings, Doe 

Run created a list of all doors, both man 

doors (less than 35 square feet) and 

equipment doors (more than 35 square 

feet). The doorways are identified in 

Attachment J1, J2, and K of the docket. 

To ensure that particles are not escaping 

out of the buildings when the doors 

were open, Doe Run tested at each 

doorway. Inflow testing was conducted 

in accordance with the Standard 

Operating Procedure (SOP) for Building 

Inflow Testing Utilizing Hand-Held 

Anemometers. (A copy of the SOP is 

attached to the Attachment E, Work 

Practices Manual Revision document in 

the docket.) 

Doe Run undertook several flow 

testing campaigns. Data from these 

campaigns are included in the docket 

(see Attachments C1–C3). Some doors 

initially did not meet the 200 fpm 

inflow requirement. Doe Run modified 

these doors by permanently sealing or 

weather-stripping the doors to prevent 

particles from escaping. Some doors that 

were initially identified were found to 

be inappropriate for an inflow test. For 

example, doors such as B24 open to a 

different, enclosed part of the building 

and not to the outside air (see 

‘‘Summary of Sinter Building Door 

Inflows’’ and ‘‘Summary of Blast 

Furnace and Refinery Building Door 

Inflows’’). The first floor of the mix room 

is part of the Sinter Plant first floor. A 

portion of the wall separating the first 

floor mix room from the Sinter Plant 

first floor has been removed. This 

allows the #6 Baghouse to pull in and 

scrub air from the first floor of the mix 

room together with the rest of the Sinter 

Building’s general air. Unmodified first 

floor mix room doors would therefore be 

subject to the 200 fpm inflow 

requirement. MDNR characterizes the 

second floor of the mixing room as a 

large settling chamber. Most secondfloor mix room doors were not subject 

to inflow testing. Second floor mix room 

doors are infrequently used; the door 

most commonly used is door S16, 

which is the only connection between 

the second floor mix room and the 

Sinter Plant Building (see Attachment J2 

in the docket). The second floor mix 

room therefore does not use the Sinter 

Building’s ventilation, nor does it have 

a ventilation system of its own. 

Therefore, door S16 will be subject to 

inflow tests, to verify that air is flowing 

into the Sinter Plant Building at 200 

fpm or more. The remaining mix room 

doors S8–S15, S17 and S18 will not be 

subject to inflow testing. See 

Attachment J1 in the docket for a Sinter 

Building door diagram. 

During the final testing campaign, Doe 

Run held the fan amperes and flow rates 

for the critical ventilation systems 

steady while measuring doorway 

inflows. The final testing campaign for 

the Blast Furnace and Refinery 

Buildings took place on March 26, 2009. 

As shown in Attachment L in the docket 

for this rulemaking, all doorways met 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

52706 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1The Sinter Plant Combination Trail flow 

requirement switches to the Non-Production 

100,000 acfm minimum requirement when both the 

sinter machine and feed belt motors measure zero 

amps. 

2The Sinter Wheel tunnel damper will be welded 

into place. 

the 200 fpm inflow requirement when 

Baghouse #7 fan was at 210 amperes or 

higher, Baghouse #8 fan was at about 73 

amperes or higher, and Baghouse #9 fan 

was about 163 amperes or higher. Under 

the 2007 Consent Judgment, #5 

Baghouse is required to meet a 300,000 

actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) flow 

rate, and #6 Baghouse must meet a 

minimum 50,000 acfm flow rate. 

Together, these account for all of the 

critical ventilation systems for the Blast 

Furnace Building and the Refinery 

Building. 

The final testing campaign for the 

Sinter Building took place May 12 and 

13, 2009. Because of the batch nature of 

the sintering process, there are periods 

when the sinter machine is not in use. 

When operating, the sinter machine 

runs at about 500 degrees Fahrenheit, 

greatly heating the air around it and 

thus affecting air flow. It was therefore 

necessary to create two ventilation 

scenarios: One for when the sinter 

machine was operating and heating the 

air in the building, and a second for 

when the sinter machine was not 

operating and the air from the sinter 

building is much cooler. Doe Run tested 

both scenarios in May 2009. As shown 

in ‘‘Summary: Sinter Building Door 

Inflows’’ in the docket, all non-modified 

doors were above the 200 fpm inflow 

requirement when the Sinter Plant 

Combination Trail was above 169,000 

acfm. To test the non-production 

scenario, Doe Run tested select doors 

and found a flow rate of 100,000 acfm 

to be adequate. 

In addition to the Sinter Plant 

Combination Trail, there are three other 

critical flows within the Sinter Building. 

The #6 Baghouse is required by the 

Consent Judgment to meet a minimum 

flow rate of 50,000 acfm. Doe Run 

additionally created a minimum 70 fan 

amperage requirement for the #6 

Baghouse. The Consent Judgment also 

requires the #3 Baghouse to meet a 

minimum flow rate of 225,000 acfm, 

and the sinter wheel tunnel to meet a 

15,000 acfm flow rate. Doe Run studied 

the relationship between flow and fan 

amperes for the sinter wheel tunnel. 

They found that a minimum fan 

amperage of 58 will maintain a 15,000 

acfm flow (see Attachment H). Doe Run 

will be required to maintain a minimum 

of 58 amperes at the sinter wheel 

tunnel. 

4. Ventilation Limits 

From the results gathered during the 

Ventilation Study, MDNR adopted the 

following ventilation flow rate and fan 

amperage limits: 

Sinter Plant Combination Trail 

Production period minimum = 169,000 

acfm; 

Sinter Plant Combination Trail NonProduction minimum 1 = 100,000 acfm; 

#6 Baghouse Fan = 70 amps; 

#7 Baghouse Fan = 210 amps; 

#8 Baghouse Fan = 73 amps; 

#9 Baghouse Fan = 163 amps; 

Sinter Wheel Tunnel Ventilation Fan 2

= 58 amps. 

The Work Practices Manual revision 

and the 2007 Consent Judgment allow 

ventilation equipment to be shut down 

for maintenance work being performed 

on the ventilation or related process 

units. The shut downs must be logged 

and recorded. The Work Practices 

Manual revision also allows ventilation 

systems to be shut down if all lead 

manufacturing process units within a 

given building have been turned off and 

all corresponding production has ceased 

for at least 24 consecutive hours, unless 

the Consent Judgment contains other 

specifications. 

The 2007 Consent Judgment contains 

other specification for the sinter 

machine wheel tunnel, #3 Baghouse, #5 

Baghouse, and #6 Baghouse. It requires 

the sinter machine wheel tunnel to be 

operated at 15,000 acfm regardless of 

sinter machine operation. It requires #3 

Baghouse flow to be maintained at a 

minimum 225,000 acfm, #5 Baghouse 

flow at a minimum of 300,000 acfm, and 

#6 Baghouse flow to be maintained at a 

minimum of 50,000 acfm. All flow rates 

are to be maintained at all times, 

including times when the Blast Furnace 

is not operational. Doe Run is required 

to comply with these requirements. 

These limits are incorporated into the 

Doe Run Herculaneum Work Practices 

Manual and are currently enforceable by 

MDNR as requirements thereof. 

Limits resulting from the Ventilation 

Study for the #3 Baghouse, #5 Baghouse 

and #6 Baghouse are the same as the 

flow requirements already present in the 

2007 Consent Judgment. 

5. Ongoing Ventilation Testing and 

Reporting Requirements 

The Work Practices Manual revision 

requires an automatic data logging 

system to record the following 

information at least once every minute: 

Fan amperes from the sinter machine 

wheel tunnel, #6, #7, #8, and #9 

Baghouses; and flow rates from #5 

Baghouse, #6 Baghouse, the combined 

#3 Baghouse/Acid Plant trail, and the 

Sinter Plant Combination Trail. 

The data logger will set off a ‘‘warning 

alarm’’ should any three consecutive 

minutes of data be below the applicable 

limit. The operator will then 

troubleshoot and work to bring the flow 

or fan amperage back into compliance 

with the limit. The data logger will 

trigger an ‘‘actionable alarm’’ should any 

fifteen consecutive minutes of data be 

below the applicable limit. Doe Run will 

produce a detailed log of the event and 

all actions taken to restore flow. 

Corrective action must be taken as 

quickly as possible, including the shut 

down of all processes within the 

affected building if necessary to prevent 

lead-bearing emissions from escaping. 

Within 24 hours of restoration of 

operations, a flow test must be 

conducted at the point(s) where the 

ventilation system failed. 

Each calendar quarter, Doe Run must 

conduct an inflow test of all applicable 

doors and openings. Testing will be 

done in accordance with the SOP 

included as part of the Work Practices 

Manual revision. If a man door shows 

inflow below 200 fpm, the door must be 

permanently sealed or replaced with a 

double door chamber system. These 

projects must be completed no later 

than three months following the lowflow measurement. Once the doors are 

modified in this fashion, they will not 

be subject to future inflow tests. Doe 

Run may petition MDNR to use an 

alternative method of addressing lowflow doors. MDNR will consider the 

petition only if the proposal is 

submitted in writing within 30 days of 

the low-flow measurement. The petition 

must outline the particle capture benefit 

from the alternative door project, and 

state why permanent sealing or a double 

door chamber system are not feasible or 

appropriate. If an equipment door 

shows inflow below 200 fpm, Doe Run 

must install heavy-duty industrial clear 

vinyl strip curtains within two months 

of the low-flow measurement. Inflow 

measurements are still required in 

doorways with vinyl strip curtains. Doe 

Run may petition MDNR to use an 

alternative method to address a noncompliant door. The same timing and 

analytical requirements apply to the 

equipment door petition as exist for the 

man door petition. If an equipment door 

is modified and measures low-flow 

again within a year of modification, Doe 

Run will propose a project to MDNR to 

significantly reduce the outflow of air 

emissions from the door in question. 

See the Work Practices Manual revision 

(Attachment E) for more details. 

All data associated with the 

ventilation study Work Practices 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52707 

Manual requirements must be 

maintained for at least five years, and 

made available to MDNR upon request. 

Doe Run must submit a quarterly report 

to MDNR summarizing any 15 minute 

alarms and associated corrective 

actions. The report must also include 

results from the quarterly inflow study. 

For a list of which doors are subject to 

inflow testing, see docket document 

‘‘Summary of Sinter Plant Building Door 

Inflows’’ and ‘‘Summary of Blast 

Furnace and Refinery Building Door 

Inflows.’’ If Doe Run measures any 

inflows less than 200 fpm, the report 

must identify these and provide a 

schedule for modifying the doors. Any 

changes to doorways as a result of 

previous inflow studies will also be 

reported. In addition, Doe Run’s 

quarterly report must describe any 

actions taken or recommendations to 

prevent ventilation system shutdowns 

or to improve corrective action 

responses. If MDNR determines a more 

timely or effective procedure is possible, 

Doe Run must submit a written update 

to the Work Practices Manual for 

MDNR’s approval. The underlying 

ventilation requirements remain in 

effect pending MDNR approval of any 

updates or revisions. If EPA approves 

this SIP revision, including the 

provisions of the Work Practices Manual 

and Consent Judgment, any subsequent 

changes must also be approved by EPA 

as revisions to the SIP. 

Once a year, Doe Run is required to 

conduct the flow testing campaign 

again, and address any issues identified. 

Ventilation systems discussed in the 

Work Practices Manual revision 

(Attachment E) may only be altered to 

improve capture and control of 

emissions. Improvement plans must be 

submitted and approved by MDNR 

before any improvement project may 

take place. Any unauthorized 

modification that affects the flow rate, 

fan amperes, or capture and control of 

emissions within the Sinter Building, 

Blast Furnace Building, or Refinery 

Building ventilation systems is a 

violation of the Work Practices Manual 

and Consent Judgment. 

Finally, if an ambient air quality 

monitor in Herculaneum monitors a 

quarterly value over 1.4 micrograms per 

cubic meter, Doe Run must conduct a 

fluid modeling study of flow patterns 

within the process buildings. This study 

would determine if additional 

ventilation is appropriate and if so, 

where the ventilation unit(s) should be 

positioned. Doe Run must complete the 

study within three months of receipt of 

the quarterly monitoring value. 

6. Winter Construction Work Practices 

Manual Modification 

In the first quarter of 2008, prior to 

the April 2008 attainment date in the 

SIP submittal, ambient air monitors in 

Herculaneum recorded values well over 

the 1.5 microgram per cubic meter lead 

NAAQS. Doe Run determined the cause 

was in-plant road dust stirred up by 

construction-related activities. Because 

the activities took place in weather 

below 39 degrees Fahrenheit, Doe Run 

was not able to run its watering system 

to control the in-plant road dust. 

To prevent this problem in the future, 

MDNR has modified the Work Practices 

Manual. The additional language 

requires projects to be suspended if they 

have the potential to cause fugitive 

emissions and water cannot be used for 

dust suppression due to cold weather. It 

also prompts Doe Run to plan 

construction projects such that 

deadlines do not occur during cold 

weather periods. 

7. Enforceability 

As specified in section 172(c)(6) and 

section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, all 

measures and other elements in the SIP 

must be enforceable by the state and 

EPA. Enforceable documents included 

in Missouri’s SIP submittal are the May 

2007 Consent Judgment, January 2007 

Work Practices Manual, and the Consent 

Judgment and Work Practices Manual 

modifications submitted to EPA on 

September 3, 2009. The Consent 

Judgment contains all control and 

contingency measures with enforceable 

dates for implementation. The Consent 

Judgment also includes monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements to ensure that the control 

and contingency measures are met. The 

Work Practices Manual includes the 

requirements of the Consent Judgment, 

as well as specific operating procedures 

and additional reporting requirements. 

The state adopted the original 

documents into Missouri’s state 

regulations on April 26, 2007, and 

adopted the modifications on July 29, 

2009, making them state-enforceable. 

Upon EPA approval of the SIP 

submission, both documents would 

become state and federally enforceable, 

and enforceable by citizens under 

section 304 of the Act. As described 

above in the discussion of specific 

ventilation requirements, EPA believes 

the ventilation requirements in the 

Consent Judgment and Work Practices 

Manual as revised are enforceable and 

meet the requirements of the CAA. We 

further note that values below the 

required fan amperage or flow rate may 

constitute a violation; the alarm 

mechanisms laid out in the Work 

Practices Manual do not prevent MDNR 

or EPA from finding Doe Run in 

violation of it and SIP requirements. 

EPA previously requested comments on 

the enforceability of the SIP submitted 

in its October 8, 2008 proposed 

conditional approval. We are now 

requesting comments specifically 

relating to the ventilation requirements 

which are the subject of this notice. 

We also noted in the October 2008 

proposal that the Consent Judgment 

contains provisions for stipulated 

penalties and sanctions should Doe Run 

fail to comply with provisions of the 

Consent Judgment or Work Practices 

Manual. EPA is not bound by the state’s 

Consent Judgment penalties, and would 

enforce against violations of these 

documents under section 113 of the 

Clean Air Act or other Federal 

authorities, rather than the Consent 

Judgment, if it approves the Consent 

Judgment and Work Practices Manual 

into the SIP. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA proposes approval of Missouri’s 

attainment demonstration SIP and 

associated control measures for the 1978 

lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards in the nonattainment area of 

Herculaneum, Missouri. The ventilation 

requirements contained within the 

revised SIP minimize the potential for 

building fugitives escaping into the 

outside air, and the winter construction 

Work Practices Manual modification 

minimizes the potential for 

uncontrolled lead emissions associated 

with cold-weather construction 

activities. EPA proposes full approval of 

the SIP as it demonstrates attainment of 

the 1.5 μg/m3 lead NAAQS, and fulfills 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

The rationale for this proposed action is 

stated in the October 8, 2008, proposed 

conditional approval and in this 

supplemental proposal. As stated 

previously, EPA requests comments on 

the September 3, 2009 supplemental 

submittal, and on EPA’s proposed full 

approval of the 2007, 2008, and 2009 

submittals. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 

this proposed action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

52708 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 17, 2010. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21446 Filed 8–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS