```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52190-52194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21199]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223; FRL-9933-09-Region 7]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to

[[Page 52191]]

approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State 
of Missouri. This final action will approve Missouri's SIP for the 
Buick/Viburnum Trend lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 
nonattainment area near Boss, Missouri. EPA proposed approval of this 
plan on June 1, 2015. The applicable standard addressed in this action 
is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes Missouri's 
SIP satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
identified in EPA's 2008 Final Rule and will bring the area into 
attainment of the 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m\3\) lead NAAQS 
in the Buick/Viburnum Trend, Missouri area.
    In this action, EPA is also finalizing its approval of a revision 
to the Missouri SIP to incorporate an amendment to an existing Missouri 
regulation to restrict lead emissions from specific sources. The 
amendment revises certain throughput and emissions limits applicable to 
the Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF) in the Buick/Viburnum 
Trend lead nonattainment area. Approval of this rule ensures 
consistency between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensures 
Federal enforceability of the revised state rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 
66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The 
interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an 
appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Doolan, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner 
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 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. This section provides additional information by 
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. EPA's Response to Comments
IV. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    In this document, EPA is granting final approval of Missouri's SIP 
for the lead NAAQS nonattainment area of Buick/Viburnum Trend. The 
applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS 
promulgated by EPA in 2008 (73 FR 66964). EPA is also granting final 
approval to portions of a revision to the State of Missouri Code of 
State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.120, ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead 
from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations''. This revision 
pertains to throughput limits applicable to the BRRF, which is the 
primary source of lead emissions in the Buick/Viburnum Trend 
nonattainment area. EPA's proposal containing the background 
information for this action can be found at 80 FR 30965, June 1, 2015.

II. Have the requirements for 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, as explained above and in more detail in the technical 
support document which is part of the docket, the revision meets the 
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including Section 110 and 
implementing regulations.

III. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened June 1, 
2015, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed 
on July 1, 2015. During this period, EPA received one comment letter 
from the Doe Run Resource Recycling Division dated July 1, 2015. The 
comment letter and EPA's responses are summarized below.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that in the June 1, 2015, proposed 
approval that the nomenclature for the Buick/Viburnum Trend 
nonattainment area is inconsistent. Doe Run requests that the term 
``Buick/Viburnum Trend'' be used throughout. Doe Run also states that 
the secondary lead smelter nomenclature is incorrectly stated as ``the 
Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF)'' and requests EPA to 
correct the nomenclature to use ``The Buick Resource Recycling Facility 
(BRRF)'' throughout.
    Response 1: This comment recommends typographical corrections to 
the proposed rule that EPA has not relied upon in its decision making 
for this final action, and EPA is therefore not changing its final 
action based on this comment.
    Comment 2: Doe Run states that the heading for section V.A.1. in 
the proposal is titled ``BRRF Process Description,'' but that it 
contains both the BRRF process description and a discussion of the mine 
activities. Doe Run requests that the section be retitled as ``Buick/
Viburnum Trend Process Description.''
    Response 2: See Response 1.
    Comment 3: Doe Run notes that section V.A.1. states ``BRRF operates 
as a secondary smelter of lead, lead-containing materials including 
spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets and shot, lead-containing glass 
from cathode ray tubes, and lead-based paint chips from lead abatement 
projects.'' Doe Run requests that the statement be revised to more 
accurately reflect the facility operations by stating that ``BRRF 
operates as a secondary lead smelter of lead, utilizing lead-containing 
materials including spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets and shot, 
lead-containing glass from cathode ray tubes, lead-based paint chips 
from lead abatement projects, and other lead bearing materials.''
    Response 3: EPA notes that the process information provided in 
section V of the proposal was reproduced from Missouri's attainment SIP 
which was made available for a 30-day public comment period before the 
document was submitted to EPA. EPA appreciates this comment as it 
clarifies process-related information. However, this comment does not 
substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and 
EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this 
comment.
    Comment 4: Doe Run notes that in the first paragraph of section 
V.A.1., EPA states that ``Crushed and concentrated lead containing ore 
was formerly processed at the Herculaneum primary lead smelter, but 
since that facility ceased primary lead smelting in December 2013, the 
ore gets shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.'' Doe Run 
requests this statement to instead read, ``The processed ore, called 
lead concentrate was formerly processed at the Herculaneum primary lead 
smelter, but since that facility ceased primary

[[Page 52192]]

lead smelting in December 2013, the lead concentrate is currently 
shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.''
    Response 4: Please see Response 3.
    Comment 5: Doe Run requests that EPA revise the third paragraph of 
section V.A.1. from ``BRRF's production is limited to 175,000 tons of 
total lead production each year . . .'' to ``175,000 tons of total 
refined lead production per year . . .''
    Response 5: EPA disagrees. Section V.A.1. refers to the lead 
production limit in Missouri regulation 10 Code of State Regulation 
(CSR) 10-6.120, which states that ``This installation [BRRF] shall 
limit total lead production to one hundred seventy-five thousand 
(175,000) tons per year.'' 10 CSR 10-6.120 does not make a distinction 
between total lead production and total refined lead production.
    Comment 6: In paragraph three of section V.A.1., EPA states that 
``Spent batteries are stored in a battery bunker until processed in a 
shredder.'' Doe Run requests that the statement read: ``Spent batteries 
are stored in the containerized storage area until processed in the 
battery shredder.''
    Response 6: Please see Response 3.
    Comment 7: In section V.A.1., EPA states that ``The batteries 
further undergo a separation process under which the lead and metal 
parts are separated from the plastic and other debris.'' Doe Run 
requests that this statement be revised as follows: ``The batteries 
further undergo a separation process under which the lead and metal 
parts are separated from the plastic and other materials.'' Doe Run 
also requests EPA to change ``The plastic and other debris are skimmed 
off and sent to recycling facilities'' to ``The plastic is skimmed off 
and sent to recycling facilities.''
    Response 7: Please see Response 3.
    Comment 8: In section V.A.1, the fifth paragraph states that ``The 
lead sulfate paste is passed through a filter press and neutralized 
with hydrated lime to form calcium sulfate . . .'' Doe Run requests 
that this statement be revised to read: ``The lead sulfate paste is 
passed through a filter press . . .''
    Response 8: Please see Response 3.
    Comment 9: Regarding the first paragraph in section V.A.2, Doe Run 
disagrees with EPA's statement that the annual lead emissions from the 
Casteel Mine and the K & D Crushing Operations are ``significant'' to 
the total emissions of 18.34 tons per year. Doe Run further requests a 
change in EPA's statement from ``processing of lead containing rock 
until it becomes wet concentrate that is shipped to other customers,'' 
to ``processing of lead containing rock to produce lead concentrate to 
be shipped to customers.''
    Response 9: The commenter makes two separate comments in its 
``Ninth'' comment per the progression of its comment letter. For 
consistency in numbering, EPA is also addressing these comments 
together.
    Regarding Doe Run's comment that the Casteel Mine and the K & D 
Crushing Operations are not ``significant'' to the total emissions of 
18.34 tons per year, EPA disagrees. In Section 3, Emissions Inventory, 
of Missouri's attainment SIP, four facilities, including the Casteel 
Mine and K & D Crushing, are listed that reported more than 0.01 tpy 
lead for inventory years 2009 through 2011. Missouri has determined 
that these facilities are significant and required modeling in order to 
determine their impacts at the monitor. This comment does not 
substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and 
EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this 
comment.
    As summarized above, Doe Run has commented on the wording of the 
third sentence in the first paragraph of section V.A.2. Please see 
Response 1.
    Comment 10: In the third paragraph of section V.A.2, EPA states 
that ``At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore is hauled from the active mining 
faces to a central crusher where it is crushed . . .'' Doe Run requests 
this sentence to be revised to state, ``At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore 
is hauled from the active mining faces to an underground central 
crusher where it is crushed . . .''
    Additionally, in this same paragraph, EPA states that ``After being 
crushed aboveground to less than \5/8\-inch in size, the ore subjected 
to wet milling and grinding with rods and ball mills . . .'' Doe Run 
has requested the word ``is'' to be inserted between ``ore'' and 
``subjected.''
    Response 10: Please see Response 1.
    Comment 11: In the fourth paragraph of section V.A.2., EPA states 
``As stated above, the Herculaneum facility ceased operations smelting 
operations in December 2013; thus, the concentrate is shipped overseas 
to primary lead smelting operations or other customers.'' Doe Run 
requests this sentence be revised to state ``As stated above, the 
Herculaneum facility ceased smelting operations in December 2013; thus, 
the concentrate is shipped overseas to customers' primary lead smelting 
operations or other customers.''
    Response 11: Please see Response 1.
    Comment 12: Doe Run commented that ``mg/m\3\'' had been incorrectly 
used in the proposal instead of ``[micro]g/m\3\'' throughout the 
document.
    Response 12: EPA checked the Federal Register proposed rule at 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223-
0001 and found that the correct units, [micro]g/m\3\, were used. No 
change is necessary.
    Comment 13: Section V.D.f. states that ``By February 4, 2013, 
install a dry lime SO2 scrubber to further process gases as 
they exit the pulse-jet baghouse . . .'' Doe Run comments that this 
statement does not accurately reflect the language of the Consent 
Decree and it should read ``By February 4, 2013, install a dry lime 
SO2 scrubber to further process the exit gas stream before 
routing reverberatory furnace process to the main stack.''
    Response 13: EPA agrees but notes that the requirement is not in 
the Consent Decree but rather is found in paragraph V, item 6.F. of the 
2013 Consent Judgment (appendix M of the attainment SIP). As stated in 
the proposal, Section V.D. contains a brief discussion of the control 
measures. This comment further describes those control measures, but 
does not substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment 
SIP, and EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on 
this comment.
    Comment 14: Doe Run comments that section V.D.i. references item 
a.; however, it should reference item b.
    Response 14: EPA agrees. EPA notes that Section 5.1, Consent 
Judgment Measures, of Missouri's attainment SIP also references item A. 
However, as depicted in the process flow diagram on page A-7 in 
Appendix A of Missouri's attainment SIP, for the reverberatory furnace, 
EPA notes that Doe Run is correct; the Dry Scrubber Baghouse CD37 
follows the exit gases from the reverberatory furnace and is not part 
of the South Refinery described in item a. (depicted on page A-9 of 
Missouri's attainment SIP). This comment does not substantively impact 
the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore not 
changing its proposed action based on this comment.
    Comment 15: Section V.D.j. states that ``By October 31, 2014, 
install ``batwing'' style ventilation covers to improve . . .'' Doe Run 
requests that this language be revised to state ``By October 31, 2014, 
install ``batwing'' style ventilation covers, or covers with equivalent 
or better capture efficiency to improve . . .''
    Response 15: As stated in the proposal, Section V.D. contains a 
brief discussion of the control measures. This comment further 
describes those control measures, but does not substantively

[[Page 52193]]

impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore 
not changing its proposed action based on this comment.
    Comment 16: The fourth paragraph of section V. E. refers to the 
``mines and mills.'' The statement should be revised to refer 
specifically to the ``Buick Mine and Mill and the Casteel Mine.''
    Response 16: Please see Response 1.
    Comment 17: In section V.H.a., EPA states that the negative 
pressure requirement is in ``inches Hg.'' Doe Run comments that the 
correct units are ``mm Hg.''
    Response 17: Please see Response 1.
    Comment 18: Doe Run requests EPA to refer in the first paragraph of 
section VI.B.to the limits of Missouri regulation 10-6.120 as ``175,000 
tons of refined lead per year.'' Also, Doe Run comments that in section 
VI.B. the proposal should consistently refer to ``lead'' rather than 
``Pb.''
    Response 18: With regard to 10 CSR 10-6.120, please see Response 5. 
With regard to the use the words ``lead'' and ``Pb,'' interchangeably, 
please see Response 1.
    Comment 19: In the third paragraph of section VI.B., EPA states 
that ``The modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP 
are 176,482 tons of Pb produced per year.'' Doe Run requests that this 
sentence be revised to state ``The modeled total emissions in the 
attainment demonstration SIP are based on 176,482 tons of refined lead 
produced per year.''
    Response 19: EPA agrees that the sentence should indicate that the 
``modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP are based 
on 176,482 tons of lead produced per year. As discussed above in 
Responses 5 and 18, the language ``refined'' is not found in the 
Missouri regulation.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP to approve 
Missouri's SIP for the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead NAAQS nonattainment 
area near Boss, Missouri. The applicable standard addressed in this 
action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008 (73 FR 66964). EPA 
is also granting final approval to portions of a revision to the State 
of Missouri CSR 10-6.120, ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead from 
Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations''.

Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 
CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Missouri 
Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 (with the exclusions of Paragraph 10-6.120 
(3)(B)1. and Table 1, and the 0.00087 gr/dscf main stack emissions 
limit for BRRF) described in the 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 
at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble for more information).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 
January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order 
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
Because this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under 
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond 
that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. 
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also 
is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state 
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this proposed rule 
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
    A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published 
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2015. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not 
affect the finality of this rulemaking for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not

[[Page 52194]]

postpone the effectiveness of such future rule or action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 18, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

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

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State effective
       Missouri citation                Title              date        EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.120.......................  Restriction of             3/30/09   8/28/15 and         Paragraph (3)(B)1 and
                                  Emissions of Lead                    [Insert Federal     Table, Provision
                                  from Specific                        Register            Pertaining to
                                  Lead Smelter-                        citation].          Limitations of Lead
                                  Refinery                                                 Emissions from
                                  Installations.                                           Specific
                                                                                           Installations, have
                                                                                           not been approved as
                                                                                           a part of the SIP.
                                                                                          The requirement to
                                                                                           limit main stack lead
                                                                                           emissions at BRRF to
                                                                                           0.00087 gr/dscf lead
                                                                                           in Paragraph (3)(B)2
                                                                                           has not been approved
                                                                                           as a part of the SIP.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                            EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
         Name of source           Order/permit number  effective date    EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(29) Doe Run Buick Resource       Consent Judgment            7/29/13  8/28/15 [Insert       ...................
 Recycling Facility.               13IR-CC00016.                        Federal Register
                                                                        citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-21199 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```