10182 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Himanshu Vyas, (215) 814–2112, or by 

email at vyas.himanshu@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

For further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. 

Dated: February 12, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04240 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0835; FRL 9942–77– 

Region 7] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Missouri State Implementation 

Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

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 lead National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the 

Exide Technologies Canon Hollow 

facility in Forest City, Missouri, 

received by EPA on October 20, 2014. 

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 Clean Air Act (CAA) 

identified in EPA’s Final Rule published 

on October 15, 2008 in the Federal 

Register, and will bring the violating 

area into attainment of the 0.15 

microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3) lead 

NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0835, to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Publicly available docket materials 

are available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region 

7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, 

Kansas 66219. Please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Doolan, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Missouri 66219 at 

(913) 551–7719, or by email at 

doolan.stephanie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

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 Compliance Plan 

for the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

A. Facility Description 

B. Model Selection, Meteorological and 

Emissions Inventory Input Data 

C. Control Strategy 

D. Modeling Results 

E. Attainment Demonstration 

F. Contingency Measures 

G. Enforceability 

VI. Proposed Action 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

In this document, EPA is addressing 

Missouri’s request to approve a revision 

to its SIP for violations of the lead 

NAAQS near the Exide Technologies— 

Canon Hollow facility in Holt County, 

Missouri. 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 

compliance with the 0.15 microgram per 

cubic meter (ug/m3) lead NAAQS. 

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 request for a SIP 

revision to bring the area near the ExideCanon Hollow facility into compliance 

with the 2008 lead NAAQS. 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). On 

October 15, 2008, EPA established a 

new lead NAAQS of 0.15 ug/m3 in air, 

measured as a rolling three-month 

average. (73 FR 66964). 

The state historically conducted 

ambient air monitoring for lead at the 

Exide Canon Hollow facility (formerly 

known as Schuylkill Metals) under the 

1978 lead NAAQS from 1990 to 2000. 

Ambient air monitoring data from this 

time period indicated that the facility 

violated the 1978 standard one calendar 

quarter in 1994. 

When the 2008 lead NAAQS was 

promulgated, the rulemaking required 

states to conduct ambient air monitoring 

near facilities that reported lead 

emissions of 1.0 tons per year (tpy) or 

greater. On December 27, 2010, EPA 

promulgated the Revisions to Lead 

Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10183 

(75 FR 81126). This rulemaking lowered 

the standard to require states to conduct 

ambient air monitoring near facilities 

that report lead emissions greater than 

0.5 tpy. 

On May 19, 2011, EPA proposed 

revisions to the National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Secondary Lead Smelters 

(76 FR 29031). In the supporting 

documentation for this proposed 

rulemaking, the emissions for the Exide 

Canon Hollow facility were estimated to 

be greater than 0.5 tpy. Based on this 

information, on March 1, 2012, the state 

resumed its ambient air monitoring 

program near the facility. Ambient air 

monitoring data for lead near the Exide 

Canon Hollow facility for the threemonth rolling quarterly average ending 

in May 2012 indicated that the facility 

violated the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

On November 22, 2011, EPA finalized 

the second round of designations for the 

2008 lead NAAQS. (76 FR 72097). The 

ambient air monitoring data for the 

Exide Canon Hollow facility showing a 

violation of the NAAQS were not 

available in time for the facility to be 

designated as nonattainment. Thus, the 

state, EPA and the facility worked 

cooperatively to develop and implement 

a plan to bring the facility into 

compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

Concurrent with the development of 

the state’s SIP revision, the facility 

installed and is operating new air 

pollution control equipment to comply 

with the revised NESHAP for Secondary 

Lead Smelting promulgated by EPA on 

January 5, 2012, with a compliance date 

of January 6, 2014. (77 FR 556). 

Although the Exide Canon Hollow 

facility was not designated as a 

nonattainment area, the provisions of 

sections 191(a) and 192(a) of the CAA 

were followed by Missouri in 

developing and submitting to EPA a 

Compliance Plan in this SIP revision 

that demonstrates attainment of the 

2008 lead NAAQS. The regulatory 

requirements of section 172 of the CAA 

that require analysis of Reasonably 

Available Control Technologies (RACT), 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM), and demonstration of 

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) are 

not applicable because the area was not 

designated as a nonattainment area. 

However, the RACT/RACM guidance 

was relied upon in the development of 

the control technologies and work 

practices implemented in this 

Compliance Plan. RFP was also not 

directly applicable to this Compliance 

Plan because the strategy was to attain 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS as expeditiously 

as possible without a phased approach 

to the implementation of control 

measures. The provisions of sections 

172(c)(5) and 173 of the CAA regarding 

the issuance of permits for construction 

and operation of new and modified 

major sources located within the 

nonattainment area also do not apply. 

The Compliance Plan requires 

contingency measures which are 

enforceable by the Consent Judgment 

between Missouri and Exide that would 

take effect in the event that the facility 

fails to attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

V. Technical Review of the Compliance 

Plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

A. Facility Description 

The lead-emitting source contributing 

to the 2008 lead NAAQS violation at the 

state ambient air monitor is the Exide 

Canon Hollow facility in Holt County, 

Missouri. A description of the operation 

of this facility is presented below. 

The Exide Canon Hollow facility is a 

secondary lead smelter located in rural 

Holt County, Missouri, approximately 

four miles northwest of Forest City, 

Missouri. Lead emissions result from 

breaking open used batteries, smelting 

the lead, and refining, which includes 

casting and alloying. Battery breaking is 

accomplished by crushing or cutting 

used batteries in order to separate the 

lead from the spent acid and plastic. 

Once separated, the lead is smelted in 

the blast furnace. Molten lead is further 

refined in kettles to the purity needed 

for its intended use and cast into molds 

for shipment to other facilities for use in 

new battery manufacture. 

The primary sources of lead emissions 

are the west wheelabrator baghouse, 

which filters the exhaust from the blast 

furnace; the east wheelabrator baghouse, 

which filters the exhaust from the blast 

furnace ventilation hoods and the 

refining and casting operations exhaust; 

the north negative pressure baghouse, 

which filters the ventilation from the 

battery breaking and storage areas, the 

maintenance building, and the kettle 

heat stacks; and the south negative 

pressure baghouse, which filters the 

exhaust from the mixing room for the 

materials that will be fed into the blast 

furnace, the storage room for the blast 

furnace feed materials, the slag from the 

blast furnace and the area where it is 

further processed for transport to an onsite landfill, and finished lead storage 

prior to shipment to customers. The 

facility also uses an acid demister to 

control the acid released when the 

batteries are crushed. The acid demister 

acts to remove both acid and leadcontaining particulates released to the 

air from this operation. 

The lead is released in particulate 

form and generally captured within 

building structures or by air pollution 

control equipment, as described above; 

however, some lead particulates escape 

to the ambient air, despite facility 

process enclosures and the efficiency of 

air pollution control equipment. 

Controls employed by the facility for 

process fugitives include maintaining 

the process and storage buildings under 

negative pressure to minimize the 

release of particulates and local exhaust 

ventilation in the form of process vent 

hoods over certain operations that 

generate more lead particulate. 

Fugitive lead particulates are also 

generated from truck traffic along the 

haul routes within the facility 

boundaries and wind-blown reentrainment of the dust. 

B. Model Selection, Meteorological and 

Emissions Inventory Input Data 

Missouri conducted air dispersion 

modeling to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the proposed control strategy. The 

results of the air model demonstrate 

attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

and the results form the basis of the 

Compliance Plan which is the subject of 

this proposed SIP revision. EPA 

conducted an independent review of the 

modeling. The results of the modeling 

will be discussed in more detail in 

section V.D. of this document. 

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. 

At the start of development of the 

Compliance Plan, there was no on-site 

meteorological data for use in the 

model. EPA recommends the use of five 

years of on-site meteorological data for 

the model (40 CFR part 51, appendix W, 

section 8.3.1.2). In the absence of on-site 

or nearby meteorological data, Missouri 

used the surface air meteorological data 

from the Brenner Field Airport (KFNB) 

near Falls City, Nebraska, about twenty 

two miles west of the Exide Canon 

Hollow facility. Exide has agreed to 

collect on-site, quality-assured 

meteorological data for use in future air 

dispersion modeling in a settlement 

agreement separate from the Consent 

Judgment with Missouri which is 

appendix C to the Compliance Plan. 

Upper air data for 2007 to 2011 from the 

Topeka, Kansas Airport Station (KTOP) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10184 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1AP–42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, Fifth Edition, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ 

ap42/. 

2EPA’s Secondary Lead Smelting Background 

Information Document for Proposed Standards, EPA 

1994. 

were selected for use in the model due 

to its proximity to both Brenner Field 

Airport and the facility. EPA conducted 

a review of the meteorological data used 

for the modeling and agreed with 

Missouri’s determination that, among 

the various options, data from these two 

locations best represent meteorological 

conditions in the vicinity of the facility. 

The meteorological data were run 

through AERMOD’s pre-processors to 

make the data usable by the model. 

Using section 172(c)(3) of the CAA as 

a guideline, an emission inventory was 

developed for the area violating the 

2008 lead NAAQS. At the Exide Canon 

Hollow facility, four specific point 

sources of lead emissions were 

modeled: The acid demister (AD), 

which includes the exhaust from the 

battery breaking and crushing 

operations; the wheelabrator air 

pollution control system (EP01) which 

includes the exhaust from the blast 

furnace, and refining and casting 

process vent hoods; negative pressure 

baghouse 1 (BH01) which includes the 

exhaust from the blast furnace and the 

refining and casting building fugitives 

captured under negative pressure; and 

negative pressure baghouse 2 (BH02) 

which captures the fugitive particulates 

from all other buildings required by the 

secondary lead NESHAP to be under 

negative pressure. 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart X. 

Missouri’s air dispersion modeling 

used a lead emission rate for the 

wheelabrator air pollution control 

system that is based on a concentration 

of 1 milligram per dry standard cubic 

meter (mg/dscm), which is the 

maximum allowed for any one lead 

source under the secondary lead 

NESHAP. 40 CFR 63.543(a). The 

modeled emission rate is higher than 

any previous stack test. The modeled 

emission rate for the acid demister and 

negative pressure baghouse 1 is based 

on 0.2 mg/dscm and the emission rate 

for negative pressure baghouse 2 is 

based on 0.17 mg/dscm lead, which is 

the facility-wide flow-weighted average 

of lead compounds in vent gases 

required by the secondary lead 

NESHAP. 40 CFR 63.543(a). The actual 

emission rates for the other three 

sources are expected to be less because 

the velocities used to develop the 

emission rates in the model assumed 

that all three units were operating 

simultaneously at 100 percent capacity. 

Historically, the facility has not 

operated in this manner. 

Fugitive sources of lead at the Exide 

facility include process fugitives from 

the furnace, refining and casting that 

may escape through openings in the 

facility buildings despite the negative 

pressure requirements of the secondary 

lead NESHAP and vehicular fugitives 

from truck haul routes. The fugitive 

emissions from buildings were modeled 

as volume sources. Building process 

fugitives were estimated with a 99 

percent capture efficiency on the basis 

of total building enclosures with 

negative pressure and local exhaust 

ventilation (LEV). 

Haul route fugitives were estimated 

using the Paved Roads section of 

chapter 13.2.1 of EPA’s AP–42 

guidelines 1 and modeled as area 

sources. The secondary lead NESHAP 

requires total enclosure and continuous 

ventilation of buildings in which 

processing and handling of lead bearing 

particulates occurs. 40 CFR 63.544(a). 

Negative pressure is required to be 

maintained in regulated buildings at 

measured values of at least 0.13 

milimeters (mm) mercury. 40 CFR 

63.544(c)(1). The secondary lead 

NESHAP also requires inward flow of 

air to be maintained at all natural draft 

openings, including exterior building 

doors for personnel and vehicular 

access. 40 CFR 63.544(c)(2). Missouri 

conducted the modeling under the 

operating scenario that the facility 

would meet the minimum standards of 

the secondary lead NESHAP. Building 

capture efficiency and the capture 

efficiency for local exhaust ventilation 

hoods were both assumed to be 95 

percent.2

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 or naturally occurring lead in 

soils that have become re-entrained in 

the atmosphere. These distant sources 

may include historic deposition from 

the facility. 

A background value is typically 

calculated by averaging the monitored 

concentrations of lead in air from an 

ambient air monitor within the 

nonattainment area. Missouri calculated 

the background level from monitoring 

data on days when the predominant 

wind direction was not blowing from 

the facility toward the monitor. 

Missouri took the additional approach 

of narrowing the data included in the 

calculation by using only ambient 

monitoring data when winds originated 

from an arc from 300 degrees to the 

northwest to 80 degrees northeast, with 

zero degrees representing true north. 

Narrowing the data considered in the 

calculation minimized the influence of 

re-entrained lead from state Highway 

111 to the south of the facility and 

Canon Hollow Road in the background 

calculation. The model already accounts 

for the re-entrained lead from these two 

traffic routes as area sources. Using this 

approach, Missouri calculated a sitespecific background value of 0.023 mg/ 

m.3

EPA conducted an independent 

review of the approach Missouri used to 

calculate the area background value and 

agrees that the use of 0.023 mg/m3 is 

representative for use in the modeling 

for attainment of the NAAQS. 

C. Control Strategy 

The following describes the control 

strategy detailed in the Compliance Plan 

for Exide’s Canon Hollow facility to 

attain the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

As discussed above, on May 19, 2011, 

EPA proposed revisions to the NESHAP 

for Secondary Lead Smelters (76 FR 

29031). The effective date of the 

NESHAP is January 6, 2014. While 

Missouri’s Compliance Plan was 

developed to attain the NAAQS for lead 

as a criteria pollutant, the NESHAP was 

developed to control emissions of lead 

as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) 

under section 112 of the CAA. In order 

to comply with the NESHAP, by January 

6, 2014, the facility conducted the 

following: 

• Full enclosure of all buildings used 

for lead processing, handling or storage, 

including product storage, and 

ventilation of those buildings to control 

devices designed to capture lead 

particulates; 

• construction of two new baghouses, 

the north and south negative pressure 

baghouses, in order to maintain and 

ventilate the total enclosures 

continuously to ensure negative 

pressure values of at least 0.013 mm of 

mercury (0.007 inches of water); 

• lowered emissions for lead to a 

facility-wide flow-weighted average of 

0.2 mg/dcsm; and 

• established a fugitive dust control 

plan and implemented work practice 

standards to reduce lead emissions 

which is provided as appendix B to the 

Compliance Plan. 

In addition to the controls required 

for compliance with the secondary lead 

NESHAP, two additional control 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10185 

measures are required to ensure NAAQS 

attainment, including stack emission 

limits and truck traffic restrictions. 

These additional limits are enforceable 

through a Consent Judgment between 

Missouri and Exide, which is found in 

appendix A of the Compliance Plan. As 

discussed above, the secondary lead 

NESHAP established a flow-weighted 

average of 0.2 mg/dcsm of lead for all 

stack emissions combined. For 

modeling purposes, Missouri assigned 

each stack emissions source an 

individual lead limit in pounds per 

hour (lb/hr). The pounds per hour limits 

are the maximum emissions of lead with 

a margin of safety to prevent exceedance 

of the secondary lead NESHAP limit of 

0.2 mg/dcsm for all stack emissions 

combined. Specifically, the individual 

stack emission limits, contained in table 

3 of the Compliance Plan and paragraph 

7.E. of the Consent Judgment, are 

provided below. 

TABLE 1—STACK EMISSION LIMITS

Emission point Control device Emission source/description Emission rate 

(lb/hr) 

AD ................................ Acid demister ..................................................... Battery break crusher room ............................... 0.024 

EP01 ............................ Wheelabrator air pollution control system ......... Blast furnace, refinery & casting process vent 

hoods.

0.322 

BH01 ............................ Negative pressure baghouse 1 .......................... Blast furnace, refinery & casting building negative pressure.0.236 

BH02 ............................ Negative pressure baghouse 2 .......................... Other building negative pressure ....................... 0.196 

Compliance with the stack emissions 

rates listed above is required by both the 

secondary lead NESHAP and paragraph 

7.E of the Consent Judgment with the 

following exceptions. If any stack test 

does not show compliance with the 

limits listed above, Exide must retest the 

noncompliant stack within 90 days after 

the receipt of the stack test report or 

results. If the subsequent test shows 

compliance, the prior exceedance will 

not be considered a violation of the 

Consent Judgment and compliance 

testing will return to the schedule 

required by the secondary lead 

NESHAP. 40 CFR part 63.543. Paragraph 

7.G of the Consent Judgment requires 

Exide to conduct record keeping and 

reporting in accordance with the 

requirements of the secondary lead 

NESHAP. 40 CFR part 63.550. 

To further reduce lead-containing 

fugitive dust emissions to achieve the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, the Consent 

Judgment requires Exide to limit truck 

traffic on haul routes. The limitations 

are route-specific and are limited by the 

total number of trips per month and 

whether the trips are ‘‘restricted,’’ 

meaning they are trips made during the 

operating hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., or 

‘‘unrestricted,’’ which are trips that are 

made along haul routes at any time 

during a 24-hour period. The limitations 

placed on truck traffic are contained in 

paragraph 7.F of the Consent Judgment 

and table 4 of the Compliance Plan. 

Paragraph 7.G. of the Consent Judgment 

requires Exide to keep records of truck 

traffic in order to demonstrate 

compliance with the hours of operation 

and monthly frequency limits. The truck 

traffic limitations were modeled as a 

part of the attainment demonstration. 

Exide is also required by paragraph 

7.C of the Consent Judgment to further 

control lead-containing process fugitive 

emissions by operating LEV’s in the 

following areas: Blast furnace charging; 

furnace lead and slag tapping; and 

refinery kettles. The use of the LEV’s 

within a negative pressure building 

increases the capture efficiency which 

may be assumed in the model from 95 

percent to 99 percent. 

The Exide-Canon Hollow facility is 

also subject to controls in the form of 

limitations on public access to areas that 

do not demonstrate attainment of the 

2008 Lead NAAQS. Air is considered 

ambient even within the facility 

boundaries if the area is accessible to 

the public. The facility is bifurcated by 

Canon Hollow Road, which is a public 

roadway, and it has chosen to preclude 

public access to an area that is smaller 

than its property boundaries. Pursuant 

to paragraph 7.D of the Consent 

Judgment, Exide must maintain fencing 

or otherwise preclude public access to 

areas on both the east and west sides of 

Canon Hollow Road, including process 

areas, the facility parking lot and a 

hazardous waste landfill. These areas 

are described in appendix A of the 

Consent Judgment. Any change to the 

fenceline specified by the Consent 

Judgment that would allow public 

access to the two preclusion areas 

requires revised attainment 

demonstration modeling and a revision 

to the Consent Judgment and SIP. 

D. Modeling Results 

A summary of Missouri’s air 

dispersion modeling can be found in 

section 5 of its Compliance Plan. 

AERMOD input and output files have 

been provided as appendix F of the 

plan. The modeling was conducted to 

determine the impacts of the worst-case 

lead emissions of the Exide-Canon 

Hollow facility including the additive 

impact of an area background of 0.023 

mg/m3 lead. 

The results of the modeling 

demonstrate that with the control 

strategy described above in paragraph 

V.C. above the facility will attain the 

2008 Lead NAAQS. At the point of 

maximum impact, which is 

approximately 600 yards to the 

northwest of the lead processing 

buildings on Exide property, the model 

predicts a lead concentration of 0.1498 

mg/m3, which is below the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS of 0.15 mg/m3. As discussed 

above, the air in this area is ambient 

even though it is still on facility 

property because it is outside the 

fenceline and therefore accessible to the 

public. 

It is important to note that the area of 

maximum impact in the attainment 

demonstration modeling is to the 

northwest of the facility operations; 

whereas, the Missouri ambient air 

monitor by which NAAQS attainment is 

measured is to the southwest of the 

facility, on a levee on the south side of 

Highway 111. The preferred ambient air 

monitoring location would be near or at 

the location of maximum predicted 

impact; however, the location does not 

meet regulatory siting criteria specified 

by 40 CFR part 58. The area of 

maximum impact predicted by the 

model contains large trees that block the 

air flow and the transport of leadcontaining particulate matter, and the 

terrain has a steep incline which affects 

air flow and dispersion as well. 

Although the location of the ambient 

air monitor is not optimum, it has 

recorded violations of both the 1978 and 

2008 lead NAAQS. As discussed above, 

the facility resumed monitoring of lead 

concentrations in March 1, 2012, and 

monitoring data for the three-month 

rolling quarterly average ending in May 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10186 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3 ‘‘Guide to Developing Reasonably Achievable 

Control Measures for Controlling Lead Emissions,’’ 

(EPA–457/R–12–001), March 2012, http://

www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/pdfs/

2012ImplementationGuide.pdf. 

2012 indicated that the facility violated 

the 2008 lead NAAQS. However, 

following completion of the installation 

and commencement of the operation of 

the new negative pressure baghouses, 

the monitor has recorded lead 

concentrations below the 0.15 mg/m3

2008 Lead NAAQS since the rolling 

calendar quarter ending in January 

2014. The average lead concentration of 

all measurements at the ambient air 

monitor from January 5, 2014, to the 

present is 0.025 mg/m3, which is less 

than 20 percent of the standard. 

EPA reviewed and independently 

verified the modeling conducted by 

Missouri. Based on EPA’s analysis of the 

attainment modeling and its outcomes, 

EPA believes that Missouri’s control 

strategy will strengthen the SIP and 

bring the violating area surrounding the 

Exide Canon Hollow facility into 

attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

E. Attainment Demonstration 

As discussed above in section IV, 

Background, the area surrounding the 

facility violated the 2008 lead NAAQS, 

but the monitoring data were not 

available in time to designate the area as 

nonattainment. Thus, the violating area 

is not specifically subject to the 

attainment dates required by the section 

172(a)(2) of the CAA. However, the 

Compliance Plan was prepared to 

achieve attainment of the applicable 

ambient air quality standard as 

expeditiously as practicable rather than 

relying upon the regulatory schedule set 

forth in section 172(a)(2). The 

Compliance Plan meets the substantive 

requirements of an attainment 

demonstration plan set forth in section 

172(c) in that it addresses: 

Implementation of RACM and RACT as 

expeditiously as practicable and 

provides for the attainment of the 

NAAQS; provides a plan that meets RFP 

toward NAAQS attainment; technical 

analyses that locate, identify, and 

quantify sources of emissions that are 

contributing to violations of the lead 

NAAQS; enforceable emissions 

limitations with schedules for 

implementation; and contingency 

measures required to be implemented in 

the event that the area fails to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS. 

The Compliance Plan addresses 

RACM and RACT by requiring 

emissions controls and work practices 

that meet or exceed the RACM 

guidance 3 and the requirements of the 

secondary lead NESHAP. Specifically, 

the stack emissions limits and 

limitations on truck traffic exceed the 

RACM guidance and secondary lead 

NESHAP. 

The schedule contained within the 

Consent Judgment requires compliance 

with the 2008 lead NAAQS within 180 

days of the effective date of Missouri’s 

Consent Judgment. The effective date 

was October 10, 2014, and thus the 

compliance date for installation of all 

control measures and implementation of 

work practices was April 10, 2015. 

However, at the time Exide signed the 

Consent Judgment on September 24, 

2014, the facility had installed all of the 

lead emission controls required by 

paragraph 6 and implemented all of the 

work practices and procedures required 

by the Standard Operating Procedures 

included in attachment B of the 

Compliance Plan. As a result, the 

facility has been monitoring compliance 

with the standard since January 2014. 

Provided the facility continues to 

monitor attainment of the NAAQS, the 

facility will meet the standard in 

February 2017. 

The dispersion modeling is the 

attainment demonstration used to verify 

that the control strategies will bring the 

area into attainment of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. In order to determine whether 

the emission reduction strategies will 

result in continued attainment of the 

NAAQS, the modeled maximum lead 

concentration in ambient air (based on 

a rolling three-month average) is added 

to the calculated background lead 

concentration of 0.023 mg/m3, then 

compared to the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

which is 0.150 mg/m3. As discussed 

above in paragraph V.D, the dispersion 

modeling predicts the cumulative 

impacts of both facilities, with the 

addition of background lead levels, meet 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. The predicted 

maximum three-month rolling average 

lead concentration is 0.1498 mg/m3. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to approve 

Missouri’s modeling as it demonstrates 

attainment of the standard. 

F. Contingency Measures 

Using the CAA section 172(c)(9) as 

guidance, the Compliance Plan includes 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if EPA determines that the 

area has failed to attain and maintain 

the standard beginning 180 days after 

Exide signed the Consent Judgment 

which was April 10, 2015. The 

contingency measures are detailed in 

paragraph 9 of the Consent Judgment. 

The contingency measure strategy 

consists of two parts: The first part is a 

measure to be implemented 

immediately following a rolling 

calendar quarter that violates the 2008 

lead NAAQS and the second part is a 

study to identify the likely causes 

contributing to the violation followed by 

the implementation of the most effective 

control measures proposed in an action 

plan. 

Immediately after notification of a 

monitored violation, Exide shall 

increase the in-plant road cleaning to 

ten hours each working day. Currently, 

plant roadways and parking lots are 

cleaned with wet wash or vacuum 

cleaning at least twice a day between 

the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. per the 

Standard Operating Procedures in 

appendix B of the Compliance Plan. The 

implementation of this contingency 

measure is expected to prevent the reentrainment of at least seven pounds of 

lead-containing dust into the air per 

year. Exide may cease or modify this 

increased road cleaning schedule only 

after a more effective replacement 

measure has been identified and 

implemented as a result of the fugitive 

dust control study in the second phase 

of the contingency strategy. 

Additional contingency measures 

identified by the study and proposed for 

implementations will also be subject to 

EPA approval as part of the SIP. Any 

future 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 

measure included in the approved SIP, 

increased roadway cleaning, will be the 

enforceable measure. These measures 

will help ensure compliance with the 

2008 lead NAAQS as well as meet the 

intent of the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) of the CAA. 

EPA proposes to approve Missouri’s 

recommended contingency measures as 

meeting the intent of section 172(c)(9) of 

the CAA. 

G. Enforceability 

As specified in 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 Consent 

Judgment dated October 10, 2014. The 

Consent Judgment contains all control 

and contingency measures with 

enforceable dates for implementation. 

Upon EPA approval of the SIP 

submission, Exide’s Consent Judgment 

will become state and Federally 

enforceable, and enforceable by citizens 

under section 304 of the CAA. 

EPA proposes to approve Missouri’s 

SIP as meeting section 110(a)(2)(A) of 

the CAA, and 57 FR 13556, and meeting 

the intent of 172(c)(6) of the CAA. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10187 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to grant approval of 

Missouri’s Compliance Plan as it as it 

demonstrates attainment of the 2008 

lead NAAQS in the area surrounding 

the Exide Canon Hollow facility in Holt 

County, Missouri, and strengthens 

Missouri’s SIP. EPA believes that the 

Compliance Plan and Consent Judgment 

submitted by the state satisfies the 

applicable requirements of section 110 

of the CAA and will result in attainment 

of the 0.15 ug/m3 standard in the Holt 

County, Missouri, area. 

Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

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). 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

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). 

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. Section 804, 

however, exempts from section 801 the 

following types of rules: Rules of 

particular applicability; rules relating to 

agency management or personnel; and 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice that do not substantially 

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because 

this is a rule of particular applicability, 

EPA is not required to submit a rule 

report regarding this action under 

section 801. 

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 April 29, 2016. 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. This proposed 

action may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 17, 2016. 

Mark Hague, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. Amend § 52.1320 by: 

■ a. Adding entry (31) at the end of the 

table in paragraph(d); and 

■ b. Adding entry (70) at the end of the 

table in paragraph (e). 

The additions to read as follows: 

* * * * * 

§ 52.1320 Identification of Plan. 

(d)* * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10188 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS

Name of source Order/Permit No. 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

(31) Exide Technologies 

Canon Hollow, MO.

Consent Judgment 14H0– 

CC00064.

10/10/14 2/29/16 and [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

(70) Exide Technologies 

Compliance Plan 2008 

lead NAAQS.

Forest City .......................... 10/15/14 2/29/16 and [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015– 

0835; FRL 9942–77–Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04083 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

46 CFR PARTS 501 and 535 

[Docket No. 16–04] 

RIN 3072–AC54 

Ocean Common Carrier and Marine 

Terminal Operator Agreements Subject 

to the Shipping Act of 1984 

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime 

Commission is seeking public 

comments on possible modifications to 

its rules governing agreements by or 

among ocean common carriers and/or 

marine terminal operators subject to the 

Shipping Act of 1984, and possible 

modifications to its rules on the 

delegation of authority and redelegation 

of authority by the Director, Bureau of 

Trade Analysis. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before: 

April 4, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by the following methods: 

• Email: secretary@fmc.gov. Include 

in the subject line: ‘‘Docket 16–04, 

[Commentor/Company name].’’ 

Comments should be attached to the 

email as a Microsoft Word or textsearchable PDF document. Only nonconfidential and public versions of 

confidential comments should be 

submitted by email. 

• Mail: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 800 

North Capitol Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20573–0001. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to the 

Commission’s Electronic Reading Room 

at: http://www.fmc.gov/16-04. 

Confidential Information: The 

Commission will provide confidential 

treatment for identified confidential 

information to the extent allowed by 

law. If your comments contain 

confidential information, you must 

submit the following: 

• A transmittal letter requesting 

confidential treatment that identifies the 

specific information in the comments 

for which protection is sought and 

demonstrates that the information is a 

trade secret or other confidential 

research, development, or commercial 

information. 

• A confidential copy of your 

comments, consisting of the complete 

filing with a cover page marked 

‘‘Confidential-Restricted,’’ and the 

confidential material clearly marked on 

each page. You should submit the 

confidential copy to the Commission by 

mail. 

• A public version of your comments 

with the confidential information 

excluded. The public version must state 

‘‘Public Version—confidential materials 

excluded’’ on the cover page and on 

each affected page, and must clearly 

indicate any information withheld. You 

may submit the public version to the 

Commission by email or mail. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions regarding submitting 

comments or the treatment of 

confidential information, contact Karen 

V. Gregory, Secretary. Phone: (202) 523– 

5725. Email: secretary@fmc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact Florence A. 

Carr, Director, Bureau of Trade 

Analysis. Phone: (202) 523–5796. Email: 

tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. For legal 

questions, contact Tyler J. Wood, 

General Counsel. Phone: (202) 523– 

5740. Email: generalcounsel@fmc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or 

Commission) has issued this advance 

notice to obtain public comments on 

proposed modifications to its 

regulations in 46 CFR part 535, Ocean 

Common Carrier and Marine Terminal 

Operator Agreements Subject to the 

Shipping Act of 1984, and 46 CFR 

501.27, Delegation to and redelegation 

by the Director, Bureau of Trade 

Analysis. The Commission has reviewed 

these regulations in conformity with the 

objectives of Executive Order 13579 

(E.O. 13579 or Order), Regulation and 

Independent Regulatory Agencies, 

issued on July 11, 2011. Specifically, 

E.O. 13579 stated that independent 

regulatory agencies should strive to 

promote a regulatory system that 

protects public health, welfare, safety 

and our environment while promoting 

economic growth, innovation, 

competitiveness, and job creation. In 

this regard, the Order encouraged 

agencies to develop and release to the 

public a plan for the periodic review of 

their existing regulations to determine 

whether they could be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed so 

as to make their regulatory programs 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS