Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42991 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

98–07–07, Amendment 39–10426 (63 

FR 18119, April 14, 1998), and adding 

the following new AD: 

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0433; Directorate Identifier 94–ANE–39– 

AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by September 

22, 2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 98–07–07, 

Amendment 39–10426 (63 FR 18119, April 

14, 1998). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) 

RB211–535E4–37, RB211–535E4–B–37, and 

RB211–535E4–C–37 turbofan engines with 

low-pressure (LP) fuel filter-to-high-pressure 

(HP) fuel pump tube assembly, part number 

(P/N) UL16692, AE709623–1, 163521538, or 

163521545, installed. 

(d) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of fuel 

leaks that have resulted in a number of 

engine in-flight shutdowns. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent loss of fuel supply to the 

engine, which could lead to an in-flight 

shutdown of one or more engines, loss of 

thrust control, and damage to the airplane. 

(e) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(1) After the effective date of this AD, 

remove from service all LP fuel filter-to-HP 

fuel pump tube assemblies, P/Ns UL16692, 

AE709623–1, 163521538, and 163521545, at 

the next part removal or during the next 

engine shop visit, whichever occurs first. 

(2) Reserved. 

(f) Definition 

For the purpose of this AD, an ‘‘engine 

shop visit’’ is the induction of an engine into 

the shop for maintenance. 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 

may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make 

your request. 

(h) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; phone: 781–238–7765; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: kenneth.steeves@faa.gov. 

(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency AD 2014–0123, dated May 15, 

2014, for more information. You may 

examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating it in Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0433. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate 

Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, 

England, DE248BJ; phone: 011–44–1332– 

242424; fax: 011–44–1332–249936; email: 

http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_

team.jsp; Web site: https://

www.aeromanager.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

July 16, 2014. 

Thomas Boudreau, 

Acting Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17461 Filed 7–23–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0448; FRL–9914–27– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri; 2013 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) 

nonattainment area of Herculaneum, 

Missouri submitted on April 18, 2013. 

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 2008 Final Rule and 

will bring the area into attainment of the 

0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3) 

lead NAAQS in the Herculaneum, 

Missouri area. 

In this action, EPA also proposes 

approval of a revision to the Missouri 

SIP related to the 2007 Consent 

Judgment which was previously 

approved into the Missouri SIP as part 

of an attainment demonstration for the 

1978 lead NAAQS. This revision was 

submitted to EPA on November 21, 

2011. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 25, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2014–0448, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: hertzwu.sara@epa.gov. 

3. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Sara Hertz Wu, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014– 

0448. 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42992 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1A complete history of EPA’s approval of 

numerous Missouri SIPs addressing the 1978 lead 

NAAQS can be found at 75 FR 52701. 

2EPA also designated portions of Iron, Dent, and 

Reynolds Counties as nonattainment for the 2008 

lead NAAQS. 75 FR 71033. Those nonattainment 

areas will be addressed in a separate action. 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. 

If you send an email comment 

directly to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket. All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Hertz Wu at (913) 551–7316, or email 

her at hertzwu.sara@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 Attainment 

Demonstration SIP Related to the 2008 

Lead NAAQS 

A. Facility Description 

B. Model Selection, Meteorological and 

Emissions Inventory Input Data 

C. Modeling Analysis 

1. Base Case Analysis 

2. Future Case Analysis 

D. Control Strategy 

E. Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM) Including Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) and 

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

F. Attainment Demonstration 

G. New Source Review (NSR) 

H. Contingency Measures 

I. Enforceability 

VI. Review of Submittal Related to the 1978 

Lead NAAQS 

VII. Proposed Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

In this document, EPA is addressing 

Missouri’s attainment demonstration 

SIP for the lead NAAQS nonattainment 

area of Herculaneum, 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 

demonstrates attainment of the 0.15 

microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3) lead 

NAAQS in the Herculaneum, Missouri 

area. 

In this document, EPA is also 

addressing a revision to the Missouri 

SIP related to the 2007 Consent 

Judgment which was previously 

approved in the Missouri SIP as part of 

an attainment demonstration for the 

1978 lead NAAQS (77 FR 9529, 

February 17, 2012). 

II. Have the requirements for the 

approval of a SIP revision been met? 

The state submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. In addition, the revision 

meets the substantive SIP requirements 

of the CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to grant full 

approval of Missouri’s attainment 

demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. We are also proposing to 

approve a revision to the Missouri SIP 

related to the 1978 lead NAAQS. We are 

processing this as a proposed action 

because we are soliciting comments on 

this proposed action. Final rulemaking 

will occur after consideration of any 

comments. 

IV. Background 

EPA established the NAAQS for lead 

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

1978 NAAQS for lead is set at a level 

of 1.5 ug/m3 of air, averaged over a 

calendar quarter. The Herculaneum, 

Missouri area is designated 

nonattainment for the 1978 lead 

NAAQS. EPA’s most recent approved 

revision to Missouri’s State 

Implementation Plan to address the 

1978 lead NAAQS was on February 7, 

2012 (77 FR 9529).1

On October 15, 2008, EPA established 

a new lead NAAQS of 0.15 ug/m3 of air, 

measured as a rolling three-month 

average. (73 FR 66964). On November 

22, 2010, EPA designated the City of 

Herculaneum as nonattainment for the 

2008 lead NAAQS. (75 FR 71033).2

Under Section 191(a) of the CAA, 

Missouri is required to submit to EPA 

an attainment demonstration SIP 

revision for lead and to demonstrate the 

nonattainment area will reach 

attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS no 

later than five years from the date of the 

nonattainment area designation. 

This rulemaking proposes approval of 

Missouri’s SIP to bring the Herculaneum 

area into attainment for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. This rulemaking also proposes 

approval of an amendment to the 2007 

Consent Judgment previously approved 

in Missouri’s SIP related to the 1978 

lead NAAQS. 

V. Technical Review of the Attainment 

Demonstration SIP for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS 

A. Facility Description 

The Doe Run-Herculaneum facility 

opened in 1892 and, at the time of the 

nonattainment designation, was the 

only primary lead smelter operating in 

the United States. The primary lead 

smelting process begins with lead 

concentrate. Doe Run-owned mining 

and milling operations located in 

southeastern Missouri are the primary 

source of Doe Run-Herculaneum’s lead 

ore and lead concentrate. Lead 

concentrate, typically 45 percent to 50 

percent lead by weight, is mined from 

underground ore deposits. The ore 

which contains about six percent lead 

by weight, is crushed and then 

processed into lead concentrate at the 

mills. Lead concentrate contains 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42993 

approximately 75 percent lead by 

weight. Lead concentrate was 

previously transported from the mines/ 

mills to the Herculaneum smelter by 

rail, but since 2002 has been transported 

exclusively by truck to Herculaneum. 

Once delivered to the Herculaneum 

primary lead smelter, the process of 

smelting the lead concentrate into high 

purity lead can be divided into three 

main steps: Sintering, reducing 

(smelting), and refining. 

The Doe Run smelter was limited to 

the production of 130,000 tons of 

refined lead per year based on a 12- 

month rolling average period pursuant 

to the terms of a Consent Decree 

applicable to the Herculaneum Facility 

entered into by Doe Run, Missouri, and 

EPA in the United States District Court 

in the Eastern District of Missouri, Case 

No. 4:10–cv–01895–JCH on December 

21, 2011 (2011 Consent Decree). 

On December 31, 2013, pursuant to 

the terms of the 2011 Consent Decree, 

Doe Run permanently ceased operations 

of the sintering plant. On April 30, 

2014, the 2011 Consent Decree also 

required Doe Run to permanently cease 

smelting operations and retire the blast 

furnaces; however, Doe Run ceased 

operation of the blast furnaces on 

December 31, 2013, concurrently with 

the cessation of operation of the 

sintering plant. The only active leadprocessing units that may remain after 

shutdown are related to refining 

operations in the Refinery and Strip 

Mill building. 

The Refinery building is attached to 

the blast furnace building and is 

currently used for refining, drossing, 

and casting operations. The Strip Mill is 

a hot rolling mill used to turn cast 

refined lead into long, continuous strips 

of flat rolled lead as required by certain 

customers. These units are addressed in 

the state’s SIP control strategy and are 

discussed in more detail in section V.D. 

of this document. 

In order to maintain operational 

flexibility at the Refinery and Strip Mill 

units, at Doe Run’s request, Missouri 

has included two possible operating 

scenarios for Doe Run in its SIP. These 

scenarios are referred to as ‘‘Scenario A’’ 

and ‘‘Scenario B’’ and are described in 

more detail in this document. 

On February 24, 2011, Doe Run 

requested a permit from Missouri to 

construct a pyrometallurgical 

technology that would have 

substantially reduced lead emissions 

than the previous smelter, sintering, and 

blast furnace operations. The 2007 

Consent Judgment, approved as part of 

Missouri’s SIP for the 1978 lead 

NAAQS, prohibited construction of new 

lead emitting processes within the Doe 

Run property fenceline. Doe Run 

requested a revision to the 2007 Consent 

Judgment to allow for the construction 

of this new low-lead emitting process 

next to the existing smelter within the 

property fenceline. On November 14, 

2011, Missouri issued the construction 

permit, revised the 2007 Consent 

Judgment for the new pyrometallurgical 

technology, and submitted a SIP 

revision to EPA on November 21, 2011. 

This requested revision is addressed in 

Section VI of this document. To date, 

Doe Run has not constructed this new 

technology. 

B. Model Selection, Meteorological and 

Emissions Inventory Input Data 

Missouri conducted air dispersion 

modeling to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the proposed control strategy. The 

model, AERMOD, was utilized and is 

EPA’s preferred model for 

demonstrating attainment of the lead 

NAAQS. AERMOD estimates the 

combined ambient impact of sources by 

simulating Gaussian dispersion of 

emissions plumes. Emission rates, wind 

speed and direction, atmospheric 

mixing heights, terrain, plume rise from 

stack emissions, initial dispersion 

characteristics of fugitive sources, 

particle size and density are all factors 

considered by the model when 

estimating ambient impacts. Missouri 

performed two dispersion modeling 

analyses for the 2008 lead NAAQS for 

the Herculaneum area. One was an 

analysis of current conditions to ensure 

the model is performing adequately 

(base case). The second analysis 

examined the effectiveness of proposed 

emission controls (future case). The 

results of these analyses will be 

discussed in more detail in section V.C. 

of this document. 

Missouri used the meteorological data 

from the meteorological monitoring 

network maintained by Doe Run 

pursuant to the 2007 Consent Judgment 

that is part of the Missouri SIP for the 

1978 lead NAAQS. Doe Run collected 

site-specific wind speed and direction 

data for at least five years. Missouri 

selected one year of representative 

meteorological data for use in the 

model. The upper air station at Lincoln, 

Illinois was used to gather upper level 

air data including information on the 

vertical temperature, moisture and wind 

characteristics of the atmosphere. This 

data set provided confidence that the 

controls selected for the attainment 

demonstration will be effective over a 

large variety of meteorological 

conditions. The meteorological data 

were run through AERMOD’s preprocessors to make the data usable by 

the model. 

As required by Section 172(c)(3) of 

the CAA, a revised emission inventory 

was developed for this nonattainment 

area. The geographic boundary of the 

nonattainment area is the city of 

Herculaneum, located in Jefferson 

County, Missouri. The emission 

inventory data are specifically for lead 

emissions. While lead particulate may 

be estimated as a portion of PM10

emissions, only lead emissions are 

presented in the inventory. A single 

point source (Doe Run) drives the lead 

inventory for the nonattainment area, 

but other sources, such as non-point and 

mobile sources were described in the 

emissions inventory for completeness. 

Doe Run, as a Title V (Part 70) source 

is required to submit its emissions 

inventory annually. Therefore, the 

emissions inventory includes the 2011 

inventory which was the most recent 

inventory available for the facility at the 

time of the development of the state’s 

plan. Nonpoint and mobile source 

emissions are from the 2008 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI), a dataset 

prepared triennially through state, tribal 

and EPA cooperation. 

The 2011 lead emission totals for Doe 

Run Herculaneum are 21.11 tons per 

year. There are no other point sources 

in the Herculaneum nonattainment area 

that have reported lead emissions to 

Missouri. The 2008 NEI for nonpoint 

and mobile source emissions show that 

these sources combined comprise 

approximately 0.15 percent of point 

source emissions total and therefore 

were not included in the modeling 

exercise as discreet sources. Emissions 

from nonpoint and mobile sources are 

included in the background 

concentration. 

In accordance with 40 CFR Part 51, 

appendix W, background concentrations 

must be considered when determining 

NAAQS compliance. Background 

concentrations are intended to include 

impacts attributable to natural sources, 

nearby sources (excluding the dominant 

source(s)), and unidentified sources. 

The calculated background 

concentration includes all sources of 

lead not already included in the model 

run script. The background 

concentration includes distant sources 

of lead, which may have originally 

derived from the plant, or reentreinment 

of naturally occurring lead in the 

atmosphere. 

In general, the background value is 

calculated by averaging the monitored 

concentrations at monitor sites outside 

the area of immediate dominant source 

impact and on days when the 

predominant wind direction was not 

blowing from the dominant source to 

the monitors. Missouri began with all 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42994 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3AP–42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

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

ap42. 

monitored days and identified days 

with no measured one-hour average 

wind direction from the smelter. Each 

monitor was examined in conjunction 

with an acceptable wind fan and the 

concentrations are averaged on days 

with no predominant winds from the 

facility. The resulting concentration 

from all the monitors in the evaluation 

is the background concentration for the 

area. 

The days selected for the calculation 

match the model study period. 

Therefore, EPA agrees that the 

calculated value represents the best 

estimate of background after all 

improvements from the 2007 SIP 

revision for the 1978 lead NAAQS (2007 

SIP Revision) were implemented. 

Additional information can be found in 

the Missouri SIP, Section 4.3. 

C. Modeling Analysis 

1. Base Case Analysis 

As discussed above, Missouri used 

the AERMOD dispersion model to run 

two analyses, the base case and the 

future case. The base case evaluated a 

reasonable estimate of maximum 

potential emissions to account for 

contributing sources based on normal 

facility operations. The base case model 

analysis used the modeling completed 

for the attainment demonstration for the 

1978 lead NAAQS. See 73 FR 58913. 

Missouri, EPA, and Doe Run agreed that 

the modeling done in 2007 could be 

used if the monitoring data verified the 

SIP attainment demonstration for the 

1978 lead NAAQS. Missouri compared 

the 2007 script used for the model and 

the current conditions at the 

Herculaneum facility. Actual emissions 

data from the Missouri Emissions 

Inventory System (MOEIS), monitoring 

data, and information from the smelter 

were all reviewed and Missouri verified 

there were no changes to any processes 

or controls at the facility that would 

invalidate the 2007 script. 

The only changes that occurred 

between the SIP revision for the 1978 

lead NAAQS and the current year were 

changes to the monitoring network and 

the fenceline. These changes affected 

only the receptor grid and did not have 

any effect on the current facility 

emission points, rates or controls. 

Additional information regarding the 

model used can be found in the docket 

for this action. 

Results from the SIP revision’s 

attainment demonstration for the 1978 

lead NAAQS predicted that, after all 

control measures were installed, the 

maximum 3-month rolling average 

would be 1.492 ug/m3. Missouri found 

that the maximum 3-month rolling 

average measured at the Main Street 

monitor was 1.160 ug/m3 in April 2009. 

Because the attainment demonstration 

modeling was done with worst case 

scenario emission rates, it is expected 

that the actual monitoring values would 

be somewhat less than the predicted 

value. The monitoring data confirm the 

accuracy and reliability of the model’s 

inputs and results. EPA agrees with 

Missouri’s determination that a separate 

base case performance run was not 

necessary for the SIP revision for the 

2008 lead NAAQS because the results 

would be virtually identical to those 

obtained in the attainment 

demonstration for the 1978 lead 

NAAQS. 

2. Future Case Analysis 

The future case analysis evaluated the 

control strategies of the SIP revision for 

the 1978 lead NAAQS pursuant to the 

existing Federally enforceable 

requirements that are applicable to the 

facility as well as the enforceable 2013 

Consent Judgment between Missouri 

and Doe Run. See appendix O, Missouri 

SIP. The future case dispersion 

modeling is the attainment 

demonstration used to verify that the 

proposed control strategies will bring 

the Herculaneum Lead Nonattainment 

Area into compliance with the 2008 

lead NAAQS. 

Missouri selected January 2009 to 

December 2009 as the base year because 

all emission reduction projects required 

by the SIP revision for the 1978 lead 

NAAQS had been completed. That base 

year inventory utilizes the emission 

rates that relate to specific emission 

activities at the Doe Run facility. 

Emission points in the model reflect the 

release points for these emissions (for 

example, a stack), not the location of the 

process unit that emitted the pollutant. 

An emission rate for each point source 

was obtained from the best available 

information. 

For the stack, emissions were 

validated by stack test data, which 

measure actual lead emissions released 

from the stack. For other emission rates, 

such as fugitive emissions, sampling 

information was used, if available. If 

sampling information was not available, 

emission rates were calculated based on 

known factors such as soil lead content, 

best available estimates such as traffic 

counts, or AP–42 guidelines.3 For truck 

haul road emissions, truck traffic counts 

were used. 

Based on the good engineering 

practice (GEP) requirements for stack 

heights (40 CFR 51.1(ii)), the main stack 

at Doe Run was modeled at 100.75 

meters in the base case model run. For 

the attainment year demonstration, no 

emissions will be vented to the main 

stack, therefore, none of the stacks 

contained within the attainment year 

model input files exceed 65 meters. All 

of the proposed stacks meet the GEP 

stack height requirements. Additional 

information regarding the future case 

year model inputs can be found in 

Section 4.2 of the Missouri SIP and 

Appendices H–M. EPA agrees with the 

modeling conducted by Missouri for its 

future case analysis. 

D. Control Strategy 

In order to bring Herculaneum back 

into attainment of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, Missouri developed a control 

strategy for Doe Run-Herculaneum. One 

element of the control strategy is the 

shutdown of the blast furnaces and 

sinter plant, which has already occurred 

and part of the Federally enforceable 

2011 Consent Decree, and requires no 

additional action by Missouri to 

implement into the attainment 

demonstration. The significant 

reductions from the shutdowns are 

expected to be the greatest source of 

emission reductions for the 

nonattainment area. Missouri’s control 

strategy addresses the remaining lead 

emissions from the Strip Mill and 

Refinery and fugitive lead emissions 

generated from sources such as trucks 

transporting the material into the 

facility using haul roads. 

Despite not being able to produce 

refined lead from ore concentrates after 

the shutdown at Herculaneum, Doe Run 

told Missouri that it may continue to 

operate some processes at the Strip Mill 

and Refinery. Missouri worked with Doe 

Run to develop two potential operating 

scenarios, ‘‘Scenario A’’ and ‘‘Scenario 

B.’’ To address operation under 

Scenarios A and B, Missouri and Doe 

Run-Herculaneum developed a Consent 

Judgment (hereinafter referred to as the 

2013 Consent Judgment; found at 

Missouri SIP, Appendix O) as a means 

to establish enforceable emission and 

production limits, controls, operating 

parameters, and contingency measures 

to reduce lead emissions from point, 

area, and fugitive lead dust sources in 

support of achieving attainment of the 

2008 lead NAAQS as soon as practicable 

following the shutdown of the blast 

furnaces and sinter plant. The 2013 

Consent Judgment was submitted as part 

of Missouri’s attainment demonstration 

SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

Following the shutdown of the sinter 

plant and blast furnace under the 2011 

Consent Decree, the Strip Mill is subject 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42995 

4 Isopleths are lines connection receptor points of 

the same value, in this case: The same maximum 

lead air concentration equal to the standard. 

to a production limit of a three-month 

rolling average of 3,750 tons of lead 

produced. 

The Refinery is subject to a 

production limit of a three month 

rolling average of 21,250 tons of lead 

produced after the shutdown of the 

sinter plant and blast furnace under the 

2011 Consent Decree. The process at the 

Refinery building, if retained, will be 

more appropriately re-characterized as a 

re-melter. The building would consist of 

re-melting, casting and alloy-mixing to 

meet end-user demand from refined 

lead brought to the facility from 

elsewhere. 

Scenario A requires that unless 

superseded in the 2013 Consent 

Judgment, all applicable provisions 

from previous SIP revisions shall 

remain in effect. Therefore, operations 

at the current Refinery building shall 

continue to comply with the building 

ventilation/particle containment, 

capture and control campaign outlined 

in the 2007 SIP Revision and 2009 SIP 

Supplement for the 1978 lead NAAQS 

See 73 FR 58913; 75 FR 52701; and 77 

FR 9529. 

Additionally, if operations at the 

Refinery building are retained after the 

2011 Consent Decree shutdown date, 

the 2013 Consent Judgment provides 

that Baghouses #8 and #9 shall be 

subject to an emission limit of 3.5 lb of 

lead/24 hours. The shutdown under the 

2011 Consent Decree eliminates 

Baghouse #7. The new emission limit 

represents a significant reduction from 

previous emissions. 

The 2013 Consent Judgment 

prescribes a stack testing regimen to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits under conditions of 

representative production. Further, if 

Doe Run chooses to operate under 

Scenario A, the Refinery production 

limit of a three-month rolling average of 

21,250 tons of lead produced remains in 

effect. 

Doe Run will operate under Scenario 

B if it becomes cost effective to increase 

production at the current Refinery 

building. In Scenario B, all operating 

parameters used in Scenario A will 

remain in effect, except that the 

production limit at the Refinery will be 

increased to a three-month rolling 

average of 62,500 tons of lead produced. 

All the kettle heat stack emissions must 

be routed to Baghouse #9 with an 

accompanying increase in baghouse 

capacity. As described below, an 

increase in capacity at Baghouse #9 is 

also listed as a contingency measure. If 

Doe Run chooses to operate under 

Scenario B, the modification to the 

baghouse must occur before 

implementation as a contingency 

measure and the remaining contingency 

measures will be triggered in a different 

order, as discussed in Section V.H., 

below and as outlined in the Missouri 

SIP, Section 8 and Appendix O. 

Baghouse #9 will be subject to an 

emission limit of 3.5 pounds of lead per 

day under Scenario B. 

The 2013 Consent Judgment specifies 

that under either operating scenario Doe 

Run could shrink the current fenceline 

to a minimum distance outlined by the 

modeled attainment concentration 

isopleths 4/ambient air quality boundary 

or ‘‘zone of public access preclusion,’’ 

surrounding the remaining process 

building as outlined in the Missouri SIP. 

See section V.H. of this document. 

Pursuant to the 2013 Consent Judgment, 

Doe Run must notify Missouri of any 

proposed changes to the fenceline, but 

if the changes to the fenceline are not 

less than the ‘‘zone of public access 

preclustion,’’ the changes to do not 

require a formal SIP revision. 

Missouri determined that allowing 

Doe Run the flexibility to modify or 

establish a new fenceline within a 

modeled attainment boundary will 

benefit the community by expediting 

any future redevelopment/land reuse 

plans. 

Although the main smelting 

operations are shutdown under the 2011 

Consent Decree, Missouri expects some 

emissions to be generated by the trucks 

transporting refined lead products to 

and from the facility via haul roads. Doe 

Run continues to be subject to any terms 

of the previously approved SIP for the 

1978 lead NAAQS standard that are not 

specifically superseded by the 2013 

Consent Judgment, including provisions 

related to the control of fugitive 

emissions. Two of the contingency 

measures discussed in section V.H., 

below, also address fugitive emissions. 

Further, under the 2013 Consent 

Judgment, Missouri will continue to 

utilize its lead monitoring site network 

in accordance with the 2013 Missouri 

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Plan, 

which was approved by EPA on 

November 22, 2013. Doe Run will 

continue to collect data from all of these 

monitors until EPA has formally 

designated the Herculaneum 

nonattainment area as attainment for 

lead, until Doe Run no longer owns or 

operates the property, when Doe Run 

ceases operations of air emission units 

pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, or 

upon approval by Missouri that 

continued monitoring is not necessary. 

Doe Run will also continue operation 

of two continuous particulate samplers 

located at the Broad Street monitoring 

site and the ‘‘City Hall’’ monitoring site. 

The 2013 Consent Judgment requires 

Doe Run to report quarterly to Missouri 

(1) any day that exceeds a reported 

concentration of 0.5 ug/m3 of lead; or (2) 

any day that exceeds a reported 

concentration of 0.15 ug/m3 of lead and 

that falls on every sixth day national 

monitoring schedule. The analysis shall 

include a review of the continuous 

particulate monitoring, the daily 

ambient concentrations, wind speed and 

direction data, precipitation data, a 

summary of process throughputs, an 

identification of malfunctions, process 

upsets or other conditions that may be 

expected to contribute to ambient 

impact, and a summary of the analyses 

as described above. 

Doe Run will continue to collect data 

from all of these monitors until EPA has 

formally designated the Herculaneum 

nonattainment area as attainment for 

lead, until Doe Run no longer owns or 

operates the property, when Doe Run 

ceases operations of air emission units 

pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, or 

upon approve by Missouri that 

continued monitoring is not necessary. 

Doe Run has been collecting 

meteorological monitoring under its 

previously approved SIP. Following the 

shutdown of the sinter plant and blast 

furnace pursuant to the 2011 Consent 

Decree, Doe Run will no longer be 

required to collect data at the forty (40) 

meter station, provided a year of 

additional data has been collected and 

no future emissions units will vent to 

the main stack. Doe Run will only be 

required to operate one ten (10) meter 

meteorological station, the location of 

which must be approved by Missouri. 

Meteorological monitoring will be 

conducted pursuant to a quality 

assurance project plan, which must be 

approved by Missouri. Doe Run will 

continue to conduct meteorological 

monitoring until EPA has formally 

designated the Herculaneum 

nonattainment area as attainment for 

lead, until Doe Run no longer owns or 

operates the property, when Doe Run 

ceases operations of air emission units 

pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, or 

upon approval by Missouri that 

continued monitoring is not necessary. 

EPA believes that Missouri’s control 

strategy implemented through the 2013 

Consent Judgment will bring the area 

into attainment of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42996 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5See 58 FR 67751, Dec. 22 1993, for a discussion 

of this interpretation as it relates to lead. 

6http://www.epa.gov/oar/lead/pdfs/ 

2012ImplementationGuide.pdf. 

E. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires 

nonattainment areas to implement all 

RACM, including emissions reductions 

through the adoption of RACT, as 

expeditiously as practicable. EPA 

interprets this as requiring all 

nonattainment areas to consider all 

available controls and to implement all 

measures that are determined to be 

reasonably available, except that 

measures which will not assist the area 

to more expeditiously attain the 

standard are not required to be 

implemented.5 In March 2012, EPA 

issued guidance titled, ‘‘Implementation 

of Reasonably Available Control 

Measures (RACM) for Controlling Lead 

Emissions’’ (RACM Guidance).6

Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires 

areas designated as nonattainment for 

criteria pollutants to include a 

demonstration of Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) in attainment 

demonstrations. Section 171(1) of the 

CAA defines RFP as annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant 

air pollutants as required by Part D, or 

emission reductions that may 

reasonably be required by EPA to ensure 

attainment of the applicable NAAQS by 

the applicable date. Part D does not 

include specific RFP requirements for 

lead. 

Missouri performed a RACM analysis 

in compliance with the RACM 

Guidance. As stated in the final lead 

NAAQS rule, RFP is satisfied by the 

strict adherence to a compliance 

schedule which is expected to 

periodically yield significant emission 

reductions. Missouri has determined 

that the shutdown of the sinter plant by 

December 31, 2013, and the blast 

furnace by April 30, 2014, addresses 

both RACM and RFP based on the 

significant decrease in emissions that 

will result from these shutdowns. In 

addition, Scenarios A and B, which 

include production limits, emission 

limits for the remaining processes, and 

an optional scenario of re-routing kettle 

heat stacks to a baghouse will further 

reduce the potential emissions from the 

facility. Scenarios A and B have been 

modeled and meet the lead NAAQS and 

also comply with RACM and RFP. 

The shutdown of the sinter and blast 

furnace are discrete control measures 

that have already occurred. All known 

significant sources of lead emissions 

have been eliminated, controlled, or 

ruled out as being ineffective or not 

viable, consistent with EPA’s RACT 

Guidance. 

The control strategy is not staggered 

or phased, therefore, ambient air quality 

concentrations are expected to drop at 

or below attainment levels immediately 

after implementation of the control 

strategy. RFP is addressed by the control 

strategy occurring in a timeframe 

consistent with the CAA and the 2011 

Consent Decree. Further, as a result of 

the shutdown of the sintering plant and 

blast furnace, all of the nonattainment 

area’s ambient air quality monitors are 

reporting Pb concentrations below the 

2008 lead NAAQS for the three-month 

rolling average for January through 

March 2014. See http:// 

www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/ 

leadmonitordata.pdf. 

EPA proposes to approve Missouri’s 

SIP as meeting sections 172(c)(1) and 

(c)(2) of the CAA. 

F. Attainment Demonstration 

CAA Section 172 requires a state to 

submit a plan for each of its 

nonattainment areas that demonstrates 

attainment of the applicable ambient air 

quality standard as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than the 

specified attainment date. This 

demonstration should consist of four 

parts: (1) Technical analyses that locate, 

identify, and quantify sources of 

emissions that are contributing to 

violations of the lead NAAQS; (2) 

analyses of future year emissions 

reductions and air quality improvement 

resulting from already-adopted national, 

state, and local programs and from 

potential new state and local measures 

to meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP 

requirements in the area; (3) adopted 

emissions reduction measures with 

schedules for implementation and (4) 

contingency measures required under 

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

The requirements for the first two 

parts are described in the sections on 

emissions inventories and RACM/

RACT, above and in the sections on air 

quality modeling and the attainment 

demonstration that follows immediately 

below. Requirements for the third and 

fourth parts are described in the 

sections on the control strategy and the 

contingency measures, respectively. 

As stated in section V.C.2, above the 

future case dispersion modeling is the 

attainment demonstration used to verify 

that the proposed control strategies will 

bring the area into attainment. In order 

to determine whether the planned 

emission reduction strategies will result 

in attainment of the NAAQS, the 

modeled maximum lead air 

concentration (based on a rolling threemonth average) is added to the 

calculated background lead 

concentration of 0.032 ug/m3 for each 

scenario. See section V.B. The sum is 

the predicted maximum three-month 

rolling average lead air concentration. 

During the attainment model run, 

with receptors spaced 50-meters apart at 

the current fenceline, Scenario A (as 

described in section V.D.) resulted in a 

modeled maxmimum three-month 

rolling average lead concentration of 

0.117 ug/m3. Scenario B (as described in 

section V.D.) modeled a maximum 

three-month rolling average lead 

concentration of 0.098 ug/m3. 

The model successfully demonstrates 

attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

(0.15 ug/m3) for both operating 

scenarios based on the implementation 

of the required control measures as 

described above. The differences 

between the attainment year and base 

year emissions rates are based on 

changes to the plant operations and 

what operations will remain in the 

future. All of the process points 

associated with the sintering and blast 

furnaces will be removed. Fugitive 

emissions from these buildings will be 

greatly reduced by the removal of these 

processes. Several haul roads were 

eliminated and re-routed due to the 

changes. 

The haul roads will no longer go 

through the old city center, but enter 

from the south over a new bridge on 

Joachim Creek. In addition, the 

remaining emission points and rates for 

the Strip Mill, Refinery and Kettle Heat 

Stacks will be changed to reflect the 

emission and production limits at the 

facility for both scenarios, as well as the 

elimination of the kettle heat stack 

stream in modeled Scenario B. 

In response to public comment, 

Missouri refined the same attainment 

model run by placing receptors inside 

the current fenceline at 10-meter 

spacing to determine the modeled 

attainment concentration isopleths and 

to establish new non-ambient zones for 

both scenarios. When conducting this 

refined modeling, the non-ambient zone 

for Scenario A includes the entire nonambient zone for Scenario B and is 

slightly larger. Therefore, the nonambient zone for Scenario A established 

the attainment boundary/zone of public 

access preclusion at the Strip Mill and 

Refinery buildings. These minimum 

distances are enforceable through the 

2013 Consent Judgment. 

The modeling results demonstrate a 

margin of safety through conservative 

background model input assumptions. 

See Missouri SIP, section 6, appendices 

H–M, O. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42997 

EPA conducted an independent 

review of Missouri’s modeling and 

proposes to approve Missouri’s SIP as 

meeting section 172 of the CAA. 

G. New Source Review (NSR) 

Within the CAA, Part D of Title I 

requires SIP submittals to include a 

permit program for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources. The current 

definition of nonattainment areas in 

Missouri, which for lead includes the 

city of Herculaneum, Missouri, is 

provided in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.020. For installations in a 

nonattainment area, Missouri rule 10 

CSR 10–6.060 requires a permit for 

construction of, or major modification 

to, an installation with potential to 

annually emit one hundred (100) tons or 

more of a nonattainment pollutant, or a 

permit for a modification at a major 

source with potential to annually emit 

one thousand two hundred (1,200) 

pounds of lead. Both rules have 

previously been approved by EPA as 

part of the SIP, as meeting the 

requirements of section 173 of the CAA, 

and EPA implementing rules at 40 CFR 

51.165. See 78 FR 19602; 78 FR 37457. 

H. Contingency Measures 

As required by CAA section 172(c)(9), 

the SIP submittal includes contingency 

measures to be implemented if EPA 

determines that the area has failed to 

make reasonable further progress or if 

the area fails to attain the NAAQS by 

December 2015. If the air quality data 

for any three-month rolling period after 

the implementation of the production 

and emission limits identified in the 

2013 Consent Judgment exceeds the 

0.15 ug/m3 three-month rolling average 

lead standard, Doe Run shall implement 

the contingency measures set forth in 

the 2013 Consent Judgment. Missouri 

may also require implementation of 

contingency measures if Doe Run fails 

to implement the control strategy 

projects in accordance with the 2013 

Consent Judgment. 

The 2013 Consent Judgment contains 

the following contingency measures: 

Project 1: Increased in-plant road 

cleaning; Project 2: Fugitive Emission 

Reduction Study; Project 3: Route 

emissions from Refinery kettle heat 

stacks to Baghouse #9; Project 4: Route 

Baghouse #9 emissions to the main 

stack; Project 5: Additional filtered 

ventilation to the Strip Mill building. 

The contingency measures will be 

completed on an as-needed basis in the 

order listed. For example, Project 1 

would be implemented after notification 

from Missouri of a first NAAQS 

violation that is monitored for three 

calendar months after the 

implementation of the control measures 

identified in the 2013 Consent 

Judgment. Project 2 would be 

implemented after notification from 

Missouri of a violation that is monitored 

three rolling calendar months after the 

completion of the first contingency 

project in the time frame set forth for 

that project. Project 3 would be 

implemented after notification from 

Missouri of a violation that is monitored 

three rolling calendar months after the 

completion of the second contingency 

project in the time frame set forth for 

that project. Project 3 is the same as the 

control measure for Scenario B so if this 

project is implemented as a control 

measure, Project 4 would be triggered in 

its place. Project 3 would be 

implemented after notification from 

Missouri of a violation that is monitored 

three rolling calendar months after the 

completion of the third contingency 

project in the time frame set forth for 

that project. Project 5 would be 

implemented after notification from 

Missouri of a violation that is monitored 

three rolling calendar months after the 

completion of the fourth contingency 

project in the time frame set forth for 

that project. The 2013 Consent 

Judgment contains a procedure for 

submitting additional new contingency 

measures when they are completed. 

Additional information, including 

emissions reductions expected from the 

proposed contingency measures, can be 

found in the Missouri SIP, Section 8. 

Doe Run must notify Missouri within 

ten days of completion of any 

contingency measure. Sixty days after 

completion, Doe Run will propose an 

additional qualified contingency 

measures to be added to the 2013 

Consent Judgment, which will become 

part of the 2013 Consent Judgment and 

fully enforceable upon approval by 

Missouri. These additional contingency 

measures will also be subject to EPA 

approval as part of the SIP. Doe Run 

may also substitute new control(s) for 

the identified contingency measure(s) if 

Doe Run identifies and demonstrates to 

Missouri and EPA’s satisfaction that the 

alternative control measure(s) would 

achieve attainment with the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. The 2013 Consent Judgment 

also allows Doe Run to change the order 

of implementation for contingency 

measures and time frames for 

completion upon approval by Missouri. 

Changes to contingency measures 

would require a public hearing at the 

state level and EPA approval as a formal 

SIP revision. Until such time as EPA 

approves any substitute measure, the 

measures included in the approved SIP 

will be the enforceable measure. EPA 

does not intend to approve any 

substitutions that cannot be 

implemented in the same timeframe as 

the original measure. These measures 

will help ensure compliance with the 

2008 Lead NAAQS as well as meet the 

requirements of Section 172(c)(9) of the 

CAA. 

EPA proposes to approve Missouri’s 

SIP as meeting section 172(c)(9) of the 

CAA. 

I. Enforceability 

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

section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 

FR 13556, all measures and other 

elements in the SIP must be enforceable 

by the state and EPA. The enforceable 

document included in Missouri’s SIP 

submittal is the 2013 Consent Judgment. 

The 2013 Consent Judgment contains all 

control and contingency measures with 

enforceable dates for implementation. 

The only exception relates to the 

Federally enforceable dates found in the 

2011 Consent Decree. The 2013 Consent 

Judgment also includes monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements to ensure that the control 

and contingency measures are met. The 

state adopted the 2013 Consent 

Judgment into Missouri’s state 

regulations on June 19, 2013, making it 

state-enforceable. Upon EPA approval of 

the SIP submission, the 2013 Consent 

Judgment will become state and 

Federally enforceable, and enforceable 

by citizens under section 304 of the 

CAA. 

We note that the 2013 Consent 

Judgment also contains provisions for 

stipulated penalties should Doe Run fail 

to comply with provisions of the 2013 

Consent Judgment. The 2011 Consent 

Decree also contains stipulated penalty 

provisions. EPA is not bound by the 

state’s 2013 Consent Judgment 

penalties, and would enforce against 

violations of this document under 

section 113 of the CAA or other Federal 

authorities, rather than the 2013 

Consent Judgment, if EPA approves the 

2013 Consent Judgment, as proposed 

today, into the SIP. 

EPA proposes to approve Missouri’s 

SIP as meeting sections 172(c)(6) and 

110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 

13556. 

VI. Review of Submittal Related to the 

1978 Lead NAAQS 

On November 21, 2011, Missouri 

submitted a SIP revision related to a 

Consent Judgment that was previously 

approved by EPA as part of Missouri’s 

SIP for the 1978 lead NAAQS. (77 FR 

9529). The Missouri SIP related to the 

1978 lead NAAQS, which includes the 

2007 Consent Judgment, currently 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42998 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

prohibits construction of new lead 

emission processes within the Doe Run 

property fenceline. Missouri is 

requesting that EPA approve a revision 

to that 2007 Consent Judgment. In order 

to allow Doe Run to construct a new 

low-lead emitting technology at the site, 

the 2007 Consent Judgment must be 

revised. 

Missouri has submitted for approval a 

revision to Section 2.B.1. of the 2007 

Consent Judgment to state that Doe Run 

shall not relocate any existing 

pyrometallurgical lead smelting, 

sintering, or blast furnace operations or 

construct any new pyrometallurgical 

lead smelting, sintering, or blast furnace 

operations in the fenceline. The other 

provisions of the 2007 Consent 

Judgment would remain in effect unless 

superseded by the 2013 Consent 

Judgment. Missouri has appropriately 

modeled all potential operating 

scenarios for compliance with the 1978 

and 2008 lead NAAQS. This revision to 

the 2007 Consent Judgment does not 

impact the modeling analyses to show 

attainment of the 1978 or 2008 lead 

NAAQS. 

The 2007 Consent Judgment was 

previously approved in Missouri’s SIP. 

The revision to the 2007 Consent 

Judgment, if approved by EPA, will be 

Federally enforceable under section 

172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the 

CAA. 

The revision meets the requirements 

of section 110 of the CAA, therefore, 

EPA proposes to approve this revision 

of the Missouri SIP. 

VII. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to grant full 

approval of Missouri’s attainment 

demonstration SIP for the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient NAAQS 

nonattainment area of Herculaneum, 

Missouri. 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 result 

in attainment of the 0.15 ug/m3 lead 

NAAQS in the Herculaneum, Missouri 

area. In this action, EPA also proposes 

to approve a revision to the Missouri 

SIP related to the 2007 Consent 

Judgment which was previously 

approved into the Missouri SIP as part 

of an attainment demonstration for the 

1978 lead NAAQS (77 FR 9529). 

VIII. 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 rule 

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 

rule approves 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). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

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 rule 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 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 September 22, 2014. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule 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 rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the final 

rulemaking. This 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, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42999 

1 36 FR 1196 (Jan. 26, 1971). 

Dated: July 14, 2014. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17480 Filed 7–23–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 574 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0084] 

RIN 2127–AL54 

Tire Identification and Recordkeeping 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The tire identification number 

(TIN), which must appear on virtually 

all new and retreaded motor vehicle 

tires sold in the United States, plays an 

important role in identifying which tires 

are subject to recall and remedy 

campaigns for safety defects and 

noncompliances. This document 

proposes two amendments to the TIN. 

First, because NHTSA is running out of 

two-symbol codes to identify new tire 

plants, NHTSA is proposing to expand 

the first portion of the TIN, known as 

the manufacturer identifier, from two 

symbols to three for manufacturers of 

new tires. This amendment would 

substantially increase the number of 

unique combinations of characters that 

can be used to identify individual 

manufacturers of new tires. Second, 

NHTSA is proposing to standardize the 

length of the tire identification number 

to eliminate confusion that could arise 

from the variable length of tire 

identification numbers. This NPRM 

would standardize the length of the TIN 

at 13 symbols for new tires and 7 

symbols for retreaded tires, making it 

easier to identify a TIN from which a 

symbol is missing. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

August 25, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

electronically to the docket identified in 

the heading of this document by visiting 

the following Web site: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Alternatively, you can file comments 

using the following methods: 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number identified in the heading 

of this document. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may contact Chris 

Wiacek, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards, by telephone at (202) 366– 

4801. For legal issues, you may contact 

David Jasinski, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366– 

2992, and by fax at (202) 366–3820. You 

may send mail to both of these officials 

at the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In January 1971, the agency 

established a requirement in 49 CFR 

part 574 for a tire identification number 

(TIN) that must be labeled on one 

sidewall of each tire that is newly 

manufactured or retreaded.1 The 

purpose of the TIN is to facilitate 

notification of purchasers of defective or 

noncompliant tires. Furthermore, the 

information contained in the TIN may 

be used by consumers to obtain 

information about the tire such as the 

actual manufacturer of the tire (in the 

case of a tire sold under a different 

brand) and the date of manufacture. Part 

574 also provides for the registration of 

tires, including the collection of the TIN 

and the contact information of 

purchasers of tires, to enable 

manufacturers to notify tire owners of 

recalls. 

From its adoption in 1971, the TIN 

has consisted of up to four groups of 

symbols. The first group of symbols 

identifies the manufacturer of the tire. 

Each tire plant has its own identifier; 

thus, one tire manufacturer may have 

multiple codes. Although part 574 has 

referred to this grouping as the 

manufacturer’s identification mark, it 

may also be known informally as a 

‘‘plant code.’’ For new tires, this code 

consists of two symbols and for 

retreaded tires, the code consists of 

three symbols. This plant code is 

assigned to new manufacturers and 

retreaders who contact NHTSA and 

provide contact information and 

information about what types of tires 

they are producing. 

The second and third groupings 

provide information about the tire itself. 

The second grouping is up to two 

characters and identifies the tire size. 

Although the original TIN requirement 

had a list of tire sizes and two-symbol 

codes, the agency has since left it to 

manufacturers to determine their own 

codes and provide decoding information 

to NHTSA upon request. 

The third grouping may be used at the 

manufacturer’s option to provide any 

other significant characteristics of the 

tire. Except for cases in which a tire is 

manufactured for a brand name owner, 

the third grouping is not required. As 

with the second grouping, a 

manufacturer must maintain 

information regarding the code used and 

provide it to NHTSA upon request. 

The fourth and final grouping is the 

date code, which identifies the week 

and year during which the tire was 

manufactured. Although this code was 

originally three symbols, it has been 

expanded to four symbols. The first two 

symbols have always represented the 

week of manufacture. For example, ‘‘01’’ 

signifies that the tire was manufactured 

during the first full week of the year, 

‘‘02’’ signifies that the tire was 

manufactured during the second full 

week of the year, and so on. The third 

and fourth symbols (originally only one 

symbol) must be the last two digits of 

the year of manufacture. 

The TIN is required to be marked on 

at least one sidewall of each tire that is 

manufactured or retreaded. 

Manufacturers must use one of 30 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS