[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 39 (Monday, February 29, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10182-10188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04083]



40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0835; FRL 9942-77-Region 7]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.


SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to grant 
full approval of Missouri's attainment demonstration State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) for the Exide Technologies Canon Hollow facility in 
Forest City, Missouri, received by EPA on October 20, 2014. The 
applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS 
promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the 
state satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
identified in EPA's Final Rule published on October 15, 2008 in the 
Federal Register, and will bring the violating area into attainment of 
the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m\3\) lead NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0835, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at 
www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Please schedule an appointment during normal 
business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Doolan, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner 
Boulevard, Lenexa, Missouri 66219 at (913) 551-7719, or by email at 
[email protected].

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 
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Background
V. Technical Review of the Compliance Plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS
    A. Facility Description
    B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input 
    C. Control Strategy
    D. Modeling Results
    E. Attainment Demonstration
    F. Contingency Measures
    G. Enforceability
VI. Proposed Action

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    In this document, EPA is addressing Missouri's request to approve a 
revision to its SIP for violations of the lead NAAQS near the Exide 
Technologies--Canon Hollow facility in Holt County, Missouri. The 
applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS 
promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the 
state satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA identified in 
EPA's Final Rule (73 FR 66964, October 15, 2008), and will bring the 
area into compliance with the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m\3\) 
lead NAAQS.

II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP 
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also 
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In 
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the 
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Missouri's request for a 
SIP revision to bring the area near the Exide-Canon Hollow facility 
into compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is proposing this action 
in order to solicit comments. Final rulemaking will occur after 
consideration of any comments received.

IV. Background

    EPA established the NAAQS for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR 
46246). On October 15, 2008, EPA established a new lead NAAQS of 0.15 
ug/m\3\ in air, measured as a rolling three-month average. (73 FR 
    The state historically conducted ambient air monitoring for lead at 
the Exide Canon Hollow facility (formerly known as Schuylkill Metals) 
under the 1978 lead NAAQS from 1990 to 2000. Ambient air monitoring 
data from this time period indicated that the facility violated the 
1978 standard one calendar quarter in 1994.
    When the 2008 lead NAAQS was promulgated, the rulemaking required 
states to conduct ambient air monitoring near facilities that reported 
lead emissions of 1.0 tons per year (tpy) or greater. On December 27, 
2010, EPA promulgated the Revisions to Lead Ambient Air Monitoring 

[[Page 10183]]

(75 FR 81126). This rulemaking lowered the standard to require states 
to conduct ambient air monitoring near facilities that report lead 
emissions greater than 0.5 tpy.
    On May 19, 2011, EPA proposed revisions to the National Emissions 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Lead 
Smelters (76 FR 29031). In the supporting documentation for this 
proposed rulemaking, the emissions for the Exide Canon Hollow facility 
were estimated to be greater than 0.5 tpy. Based on this information, 
on March 1, 2012, the state resumed its ambient air monitoring program 
near the facility. Ambient air monitoring data for lead near the Exide 
Canon Hollow facility for the three-month rolling quarterly average 
ending in May 2012 indicated that the facility violated the 2008 lead 
    On November 22, 2011, EPA finalized the second round of 
designations for the 2008 lead NAAQS. (76 FR 72097). The ambient air 
monitoring data for the Exide Canon Hollow facility showing a violation 
of the NAAQS were not available in time for the facility to be 
designated as nonattainment. Thus, the state, EPA and the facility 
worked cooperatively to develop and implement a plan to bring the 
facility into compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    Concurrent with the development of the state's SIP revision, the 
facility installed and is operating new air pollution control equipment 
to comply with the revised NESHAP for Secondary Lead Smelting 
promulgated by EPA on January 5, 2012, with a compliance date of 
January 6, 2014. (77 FR 556).
    Although the Exide Canon Hollow facility was not designated as a 
nonattainment area, the provisions of sections 191(a) and 192(a) of the 
CAA were followed by Missouri in developing and submitting to EPA a 
Compliance Plan in this SIP revision that demonstrates attainment of 
the 2008 lead NAAQS. The regulatory requirements of section 172 of the 
CAA that require analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technologies 
(RACT), Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), and demonstration 
of Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) are not applicable because the 
area was not designated as a nonattainment area. However, the RACT/RACM 
guidance was relied upon in the development of the control technologies 
and work practices implemented in this Compliance Plan. RFP was also 
not directly applicable to this Compliance Plan because the strategy 
was to attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS as expeditiously as possible without 
a phased approach to the implementation of control measures. The 
provisions of sections 172(c)(5) and 173 of the CAA regarding the 
issuance of permits for construction and operation of new and modified 
major sources located within the nonattainment area also do not apply. 
The Compliance Plan requires contingency measures which are enforceable 
by the Consent Judgment between Missouri and Exide that would take 
effect in the event that the facility fails to attain the 2008 Lead 

V. Technical Review of the Compliance Plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS

A. Facility Description

    The lead-emitting source contributing to the 2008 lead NAAQS 
violation at the state ambient air monitor is the Exide Canon Hollow 
facility in Holt County, Missouri. A description of the operation of 
this facility is presented below.
    The Exide Canon Hollow facility is a secondary lead smelter located 
in rural Holt County, Missouri, approximately four miles northwest of 
Forest City, Missouri. Lead emissions result from breaking open used 
batteries, smelting the lead, and refining, which includes casting and 
alloying. Battery breaking is accomplished by crushing or cutting used 
batteries in order to separate the lead from the spent acid and 
plastic. Once separated, the lead is smelted in the blast furnace. 
Molten lead is further refined in kettles to the purity needed for its 
intended use and cast into molds for shipment to other facilities for 
use in new battery manufacture.
    The primary sources of lead emissions are the west wheelabrator 
baghouse, which filters the exhaust from the blast furnace; the east 
wheelabrator baghouse, which filters the exhaust from the blast furnace 
ventilation hoods and the refining and casting operations exhaust; the 
north negative pressure baghouse, which filters the ventilation from 
the battery breaking and storage areas, the maintenance building, and 
the kettle heat stacks; and the south negative pressure baghouse, which 
filters the exhaust from the mixing room for the materials that will be 
fed into the blast furnace, the storage room for the blast furnace feed 
materials, the slag from the blast furnace and the area where it is 
further processed for transport to an on-site landfill, and finished 
lead storage prior to shipment to customers. The facility also uses an 
acid demister to control the acid released when the batteries are 
crushed. The acid demister acts to remove both acid and lead-containing 
particulates released to the air from this operation.
    The lead is released in particulate form and generally captured 
within building structures or by air pollution control equipment, as 
described above; however, some lead particulates escape to the ambient 
air, despite facility process enclosures and the efficiency of air 
pollution control equipment. Controls employed by the facility for 
process fugitives include maintaining the process and storage buildings 
under negative pressure to minimize the release of particulates and 
local exhaust ventilation in the form of process vent hoods over 
certain operations that generate more lead particulate.
    Fugitive lead particulates are also generated from truck traffic 
along the haul routes within the facility boundaries and wind-blown re-
entrainment of the dust.

B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data

    Missouri conducted air dispersion modeling to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the proposed control strategy. The results of the air 
model demonstrate attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS and the results 
form the basis of the Compliance Plan which is the subject of this 
proposed SIP revision. EPA conducted an independent review of the 
modeling. The results of the modeling will be discussed in more detail 
in section V.D. of this document.
    The model, AERMOD, was utilized and is EPA's preferred model for 
demonstrating attainment of the lead NAAQS. AERMOD estimates the 
combined ambient impact of sources by simulating Gaussian dispersion of 
emissions plumes. Emission rates, wind speed and direction, atmospheric 
mixing heights, terrain, plume rise from stack emissions, initial 
dispersion characteristics of fugitive sources, particle size and 
density are all factors considered by the model when estimating ambient 
    At the start of development of the Compliance Plan, there was no 
on-site meteorological data for use in the model. EPA recommends the 
use of five years of on-site meteorological data for the model (40 CFR 
part 51, appendix W, section In the absence of on-site or 
nearby meteorological data, Missouri used the surface air 
meteorological data from the Brenner Field Airport (KFNB) near Falls 
City, Nebraska, about twenty two miles west of the Exide Canon Hollow 
facility. Exide has agreed to collect on-site, quality-assured 
meteorological data for use in future air dispersion modeling in a 
settlement agreement separate from the Consent Judgment with Missouri 
which is appendix C to the Compliance Plan. Upper air data for 2007 to 
2011 from the Topeka, Kansas Airport Station (KTOP)

[[Page 10184]]

were selected for use in the model due to its proximity to both Brenner 
Field Airport and the facility. EPA conducted a review of the 
meteorological data used for the modeling and agreed with Missouri's 
determination that, among the various options, data from these two 
locations best represent meteorological conditions in the vicinity of 
the facility. The meteorological data were run through AERMOD's pre-
processors to make the data usable by the model.
    Using section 172(c)(3) of the CAA as a guideline, an emission 
inventory was developed for the area violating the 2008 lead NAAQS. At 
the Exide Canon Hollow facility, four specific point sources of lead 
emissions were modeled: The acid demister (AD), which includes the 
exhaust from the battery breaking and crushing operations; the 
wheelabrator air pollution control system (EP01) which includes the 
exhaust from the blast furnace, and refining and casting process vent 
hoods; negative pressure baghouse 1 (BH01) which includes the exhaust 
from the blast furnace and the refining and casting building fugitives 
captured under negative pressure; and negative pressure baghouse 2 
(BH02) which captures the fugitive particulates from all other 
buildings required by the secondary lead NESHAP to be under negative 
pressure. 40 CFR part 63, subpart X.
    Missouri's air dispersion modeling used a lead emission rate for 
the wheelabrator air pollution control system that is based on a 
concentration of 1 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm), 
which is the maximum allowed for any one lead source under the 
secondary lead NESHAP. 40 CFR 63.543(a). The modeled emission rate is 
higher than any previous stack test. The modeled emission rate for the 
acid demister and negative pressure baghouse 1 is based on 0.2 mg/dscm 
and the emission rate for negative pressure baghouse 2 is based on 0.17 
mg/dscm lead, which is the facility-wide flow-weighted average of lead 
compounds in vent gases required by the secondary lead NESHAP. 40 CFR 
63.543(a). The actual emission rates for the other three sources are 
expected to be less because the velocities used to develop the emission 
rates in the model assumed that all three units were operating 
simultaneously at 100 percent capacity. Historically, the facility has 
not operated in this manner.
    Fugitive sources of lead at the Exide facility include process 
fugitives from the furnace, refining and casting that may escape 
through openings in the facility buildings despite the negative 
pressure requirements of the secondary lead NESHAP and vehicular 
fugitives from truck haul routes. The fugitive emissions from buildings 
were modeled as volume sources. Building process fugitives were 
estimated with a 99 percent capture efficiency on the basis of total 
building enclosures with negative pressure and local exhaust 
ventilation (LEV).
    Haul route fugitives were estimated using the Paved Roads section 
of chapter 13.2.1 of EPA's AP-42 guidelines \1\ and modeled as area 
sources. The secondary lead NESHAP requires total enclosure and 
continuous ventilation of buildings in which processing and handling of 
lead bearing particulates occurs. 40 CFR 63.544(a). Negative pressure 
is required to be maintained in regulated buildings at measured values 
of at least 0.13 milimeters (mm) mercury. 40 CFR 63.544(c)(1). The 
secondary lead NESHAP also requires inward flow of air to be maintained 
at all natural draft openings, including exterior building doors for 
personnel and vehicular access. 40 CFR 63.544(c)(2). Missouri conducted 
the modeling under the operating scenario that the facility would meet 
the minimum standards of the secondary lead NESHAP. Building capture 
efficiency and the capture efficiency for local exhaust ventilation 
hoods were both assumed to be 95 percent.\2\

    \1\ AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth 
Edition, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
    \2\ EPA's Secondary Lead Smelting Background Information 
Document for Proposed Standards, EPA 1994.

    In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, background 
concentrations must be considered when determining NAAQS compliance. 
Background concentrations are intended to include impacts attributable 
to natural sources, nearby sources (excluding the dominant source(s)), 
and unidentified sources. The calculated background concentration 
includes all sources of lead not already included in the model run 
script. The background concentration includes distant sources of lead 
or naturally occurring lead in soils that have become re-entrained in 
the atmosphere. These distant sources may include historic deposition 
from the facility.
    A background value is typically calculated by averaging the 
monitored concentrations of lead in air from an ambient air monitor 
within the nonattainment area. Missouri calculated the background level 
from monitoring data on days when the predominant wind direction was 
not blowing from the facility toward the monitor. Missouri took the 
additional approach of narrowing the data included in the calculation 
by using only ambient monitoring data when winds originated from an arc 
from 300 degrees to the northwest to 80 degrees northeast, with zero 
degrees representing true north. Narrowing the data considered in the 
calculation minimized the influence of re-entrained lead from state 
Highway 111 to the south of the facility and Canon Hollow Road in the 
background calculation. The model already accounts for the re-entrained 
lead from these two traffic routes as area sources. Using this 
approach, Missouri calculated a site-specific background value of 0.023 
    EPA conducted an independent review of the approach Missouri used 
to calculate the area background value and agrees that the use of 0.023 
[micro]g/m\3\ is representative for use in the modeling for attainment 
of the NAAQS.

C. Control Strategy

    The following describes the control strategy detailed in the 
Compliance Plan for Exide's Canon Hollow facility to attain the 2008 
lead NAAQS.
    As discussed above, on May 19, 2011, EPA proposed revisions to the 
NESHAP for Secondary Lead Smelters (76 FR 29031). The effective date of 
the NESHAP is January 6, 2014. While Missouri's Compliance Plan was 
developed to attain the NAAQS for lead as a criteria pollutant, the 
NESHAP was developed to control emissions of lead as a Hazardous Air 
Pollutant (HAP) under section 112 of the CAA. In order to comply with 
the NESHAP, by January 6, 2014, the facility conducted the following:
     Full enclosure of all buildings used for lead processing, 
handling or storage, including product storage, and ventilation of 
those buildings to control devices designed to capture lead 
     construction of two new baghouses, the north and south 
negative pressure baghouses, in order to maintain and ventilate the 
total enclosures continuously to ensure negative pressure values of at 
least 0.013 mm of mercury (0.007 inches of water);
     lowered emissions for lead to a facility-wide flow-
weighted average of 0.2 mg/dcsm; and
     established a fugitive dust control plan and implemented 
work practice standards to reduce lead emissions which is provided as 
appendix B to the Compliance Plan.
    In addition to the controls required for compliance with the 
secondary lead NESHAP, two additional control

[[Page 10185]]

measures are required to ensure NAAQS attainment, including stack 
emission limits and truck traffic restrictions. These additional limits 
are enforceable through a Consent Judgment between Missouri and Exide, 
which is found in appendix A of the Compliance Plan. As discussed 
above, the secondary lead NESHAP established a flow-weighted average of 
0.2 mg/dcsm of lead for all stack emissions combined. For modeling 
purposes, Missouri assigned each stack emissions source an individual 
lead limit in pounds per hour (lb/hr). The pounds per hour limits are 
the maximum emissions of lead with a margin of safety to prevent 
exceedance of the secondary lead NESHAP limit of 0.2 mg/dcsm for all 
stack emissions combined. Specifically, the individual stack emission 
limits, contained in table 3 of the Compliance Plan and paragraph 7.E. 
of the Consent Judgment, are provided below.

                                         Table 1--Stack Emission Limits
                                                                         Emission source/        Emission rate
             Emission point                    Control device              description              (lb/hr)
AD.....................................  Acid demister............  Battery break crusher                  0.024
EP01...................................  Wheelabrator air           Blast furnace, refinery &              0.322
                                          pollution control system.  casting process vent
BH01...................................  Negative pressure          Blast furnace, refinery &              0.236
                                          baghouse 1.                casting building
                                                                     negative pressure.
BH02...................................  Negative pressure          Other building negative                0.196
                                          baghouse 2.                pressure.

    Compliance with the stack emissions rates listed above is required 
by both the secondary lead NESHAP and paragraph 7.E of the Consent 
Judgment with the following exceptions. If any stack test does not show 
compliance with the limits listed above, Exide must retest the 
noncompliant stack within 90 days after the receipt of the stack test 
report or results. If the subsequent test shows compliance, the prior 
exceedance will not be considered a violation of the Consent Judgment 
and compliance testing will return to the schedule required by the 
secondary lead NESHAP. 40 CFR part 63.543. Paragraph 7.G of the Consent 
Judgment requires Exide to conduct record keeping and reporting in 
accordance with the requirements of the secondary lead NESHAP. 40 CFR 
part 63.550.
    To further reduce lead-containing fugitive dust emissions to 
achieve the 2008 Lead NAAQS, the Consent Judgment requires Exide to 
limit truck traffic on haul routes. The limitations are route-specific 
and are limited by the total number of trips per month and whether the 
trips are ``restricted,'' meaning they are trips made during the 
operating hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., or ``unrestricted,'' which are 
trips that are made along haul routes at any time during a 24-hour 
period. The limitations placed on truck traffic are contained in 
paragraph 7.F of the Consent Judgment and table 4 of the Compliance 
Plan. Paragraph 7.G. of the Consent Judgment requires Exide to keep 
records of truck traffic in order to demonstrate compliance with the 
hours of operation and monthly frequency limits. The truck traffic 
limitations were modeled as a part of the attainment demonstration.
    Exide is also required by paragraph 7.C of the Consent Judgment to 
further control lead-containing process fugitive emissions by operating 
LEV's in the following areas: Blast furnace charging; furnace lead and 
slag tapping; and refinery kettles. The use of the LEV's within a 
negative pressure building increases the capture efficiency which may 
be assumed in the model from 95 percent to 99 percent.
    The Exide-Canon Hollow facility is also subject to controls in the 
form of limitations on public access to areas that do not demonstrate 
attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Air is considered ambient even 
within the facility boundaries if the area is accessible to the public. 
The facility is bifurcated by Canon Hollow Road, which is a public 
roadway, and it has chosen to preclude public access to an area that is 
smaller than its property boundaries. Pursuant to paragraph 7.D of the 
Consent Judgment, Exide must maintain fencing or otherwise preclude 
public access to areas on both the east and west sides of Canon Hollow 
Road, including process areas, the facility parking lot and a hazardous 
waste landfill. These areas are described in appendix A of the Consent 
Judgment. Any change to the fenceline specified by the Consent Judgment 
that would allow public access to the two preclusion areas requires 
revised attainment demonstration modeling and a revision to the Consent 
Judgment and SIP.

D. Modeling Results

    A summary of Missouri's air dispersion modeling can be found in 
section 5 of its Compliance Plan. AERMOD input and output files have 
been provided as appendix F of the plan. The modeling was conducted to 
determine the impacts of the worst-case lead emissions of the Exide-
Canon Hollow facility including the additive impact of an area 
background of 0.023 [micro]g/m\3\ lead.
    The results of the modeling demonstrate that with the control 
strategy described above in paragraph V.C. above the facility will 
attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS. At the point of maximum impact, which is 
approximately 600 yards to the northwest of the lead processing 
buildings on Exide property, the model predicts a lead concentration of 
0.1498 [micro]g/m\3\, which is below the 2008 Lead NAAQS of 0.15 
[micro]g/m\3\. As discussed above, the air in this area is ambient even 
though it is still on facility property because it is outside the 
fenceline and therefore accessible to the public.
    It is important to note that the area of maximum impact in the 
attainment demonstration modeling is to the northwest of the facility 
operations; whereas, the Missouri ambient air monitor by which NAAQS 
attainment is measured is to the southwest of the facility, on a levee 
on the south side of Highway 111. The preferred ambient air monitoring 
location would be near or at the location of maximum predicted impact; 
however, the location does not meet regulatory siting criteria 
specified by 40 CFR part 58. The area of maximum impact predicted by 
the model contains large trees that block the air flow and the 
transport of lead-containing particulate matter, and the terrain has a 
steep incline which affects air flow and dispersion as well.
    Although the location of the ambient air monitor is not optimum, it 
has recorded violations of both the 1978 and 2008 lead NAAQS. As 
discussed above, the facility resumed monitoring of lead concentrations 
in March 1, 2012, and monitoring data for the three-month rolling 
quarterly average ending in May

[[Page 10186]]

2012 indicated that the facility violated the 2008 lead NAAQS. However, 
following completion of the installation and commencement of the 
operation of the new negative pressure baghouses, the monitor has 
recorded lead concentrations below the 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ 2008 Lead 
NAAQS since the rolling calendar quarter ending in January 2014. The 
average lead concentration of all measurements at the ambient air 
monitor from January 5, 2014, to the present is 0.025 [micro]g/m\3\, 
which is less than 20 percent of the standard.
    EPA reviewed and independently verified the modeling conducted by 
Missouri. Based on EPA's analysis of the attainment modeling and its 
outcomes, EPA believes that Missouri's control strategy will strengthen 
the SIP and bring the violating area surrounding the Exide Canon Hollow 
facility into attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

E. Attainment Demonstration

    As discussed above in section IV, Background, the area surrounding 
the facility violated the 2008 lead NAAQS, but the monitoring data were 
not available in time to designate the area as nonattainment. Thus, the 
violating area is not specifically subject to the attainment dates 
required by the section 172(a)(2) of the CAA. However, the Compliance 
Plan was prepared to achieve attainment of the applicable ambient air 
quality standard as expeditiously as practicable rather than relying 
upon the regulatory schedule set forth in section 172(a)(2). The 
Compliance Plan meets the substantive requirements of an attainment 
demonstration plan set forth in section 172(c) in that it addresses: 
Implementation of RACM and RACT as expeditiously as practicable and 
provides for the attainment of the NAAQS; provides a plan that meets 
RFP toward NAAQS attainment; technical analyses that locate, identify, 
and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations 
of the lead NAAQS; enforceable emissions limitations with schedules for 
implementation; and contingency measures required to be implemented in 
the event that the area fails to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
    The Compliance Plan addresses RACM and RACT by requiring emissions 
controls and work practices that meet or exceed the RACM guidance \3\ 
and the requirements of the secondary lead NESHAP. Specifically, the 
stack emissions limits and limitations on truck traffic exceed the RACM 
guidance and secondary lead NESHAP.

    \3\ ``Guide to Developing Reasonably Achievable Control Measures 
for Controlling Lead Emissions,'' (EPA-457/R-12-001), March 2012, 

    The schedule contained within the Consent Judgment requires 
compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS within 180 days of the effective 
date of Missouri's Consent Judgment. The effective date was October 10, 
2014, and thus the compliance date for installation of all control 
measures and implementation of work practices was April 10, 2015. 
However, at the time Exide signed the Consent Judgment on September 24, 
2014, the facility had installed all of the lead emission controls 
required by paragraph 6 and implemented all of the work practices and 
procedures required by the Standard Operating Procedures included in 
attachment B of the Compliance Plan. As a result, the facility has been 
monitoring compliance with the standard since January 2014. Provided 
the facility continues to monitor attainment of the NAAQS, the facility 
will meet the standard in February 2017.
    The dispersion modeling is the attainment demonstration used to 
verify that the control strategies will bring the area into attainment 
of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. In order to determine whether the emission 
reduction strategies will result in continued attainment of the NAAQS, 
the modeled maximum lead concentration in ambient air (based on a 
rolling three-month average) is added to the calculated background lead 
concentration of 0.023 [micro]g/m\3\, then compared to the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS which is 0.150 [micro]g/m\3\. As discussed above in paragraph 
V.D, the dispersion modeling predicts the cumulative impacts of both 
facilities, with the addition of background lead levels, meet the 2008 
Lead NAAQS. The predicted maximum three-month rolling average lead 
concentration is 0.1498 [micro]g/m\3\. Therefore, EPA proposes to 
approve Missouri's modeling as it demonstrates attainment of the 

F. Contingency Measures

    Using the CAA section 172(c)(9) as guidance, the Compliance Plan 
includes contingency measures to be implemented if EPA determines that 
the area has failed to attain and maintain the standard beginning 180 
days after Exide signed the Consent Judgment which was April 10, 2015. 
The contingency measures are detailed in paragraph 9 of the Consent 
    The contingency measure strategy consists of two parts: The first 
part is a measure to be implemented immediately following a rolling 
calendar quarter that violates the 2008 lead NAAQS and the second part 
is a study to identify the likely causes contributing to the violation 
followed by the implementation of the most effective control measures 
proposed in an action plan.
    Immediately after notification of a monitored violation, Exide 
shall increase the in-plant road cleaning to ten hours each working 
day. Currently, plant roadways and parking lots are cleaned with wet 
wash or vacuum cleaning at least twice a day between the hours of 7 
a.m. and 7 p.m. per the Standard Operating Procedures in appendix B of 
the Compliance Plan. The implementation of this contingency measure is 
expected to prevent the re-entrainment of at least seven pounds of 
lead-containing dust into the air per year. Exide may cease or modify 
this increased road cleaning schedule only after a more effective 
replacement measure has been identified and implemented as a result of 
the fugitive dust control study in the second phase of the contingency 
    Additional contingency measures identified by the study and 
proposed for implementations will also be subject to EPA approval as 
part of the SIP. Any future changes to contingency measures would 
require a public hearing at the state level and EPA approval as a 
formal SIP revision. Until such time as EPA approves any substitute 
measure, the measure included in the approved SIP, increased roadway 
cleaning, will be the enforceable measure. These measures will help 
ensure compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS as well as meet the intent 
of the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
    EPA proposes to approve Missouri's recommended contingency measures 
as meeting the intent of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

G. Enforceability

    As specified in section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556, 
all measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by the 
state and EPA. The enforceable document included in Missouri's SIP 
submittal is the Consent Judgment dated October 10, 2014. The Consent 
Judgment contains all control and contingency measures with enforceable 
dates for implementation. Upon EPA approval of the SIP submission, 
Exide's Consent Judgment will become state and Federally enforceable, 
and enforceable by citizens under section 304 of the CAA.
    EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting section 
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556, and meeting the intent of 
172(c)(6) of the CAA.

[[Page 10187]]

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to grant approval of Missouri's Compliance Plan as 
it as it demonstrates attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the area 
surrounding the Exide Canon Hollow facility in Holt County, Missouri, 
and strengthens Missouri's SIP. EPA believes that the Compliance Plan 
and Consent Judgment submitted by the state satisfies the applicable 
requirements of section 110 of the CAA and will result in attainment of 
the 0.15 ug/m\3\ standard in the Holt County, Missouri, area.

Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. 
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally 
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble for more information).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the 
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules 
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency 
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect 
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by April 29, 2016. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not 
affect the finality of this rulemaking for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
future rule or action. This proposed action may not be challenged later 
in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 17, 2016.
Mark Hague,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

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


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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

2. Amend Sec.  52.1320 by:
a. Adding entry (31) at the end of the table in paragraph(d); and
b. Adding entry (70) at the end of the table in paragraph (e).
    The additions to read as follows:
* * * * *

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of Plan.

    (d)* * *

[[Page 10188]]

                            EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
        Name of source         Order/Permit No.   effective     EPA Approval              Explanation
                                                     date           date
                                                  * * * * * * *
(31) Exide Technologies Canon  Consent Judgment     10/10/14  2/29/16 and      .................................
 Hollow, MO.                    14H0-CC00064.                  [Insert

    (e) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
  Name of nonregulatory SIP      geographic or      State       EPA Approval
          provision              nonattainment    submittal         date                  Explanation
                                     area            date
                                                  * * * * * * *
(70) Exide Technologies        Forest City.....     10/15/14  2/29/16 and      [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0835; FRL 9942-
 Compliance Plan 2008 lead                                     [Insert          77-Region 7.
 NAAQS.                                                        Federal

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