ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2008-0538; FRL____________]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant conditional approval of Missouri’s attainment demonstration
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area of Herculaneum, Missouri. 
The state asserts that it will adopt and submit specific enforceable
measures to EPA by date certain, which will be no later than one year
following any EPA approval of the plan, in order to meet the conditions
described in this proposal.  EPA proposes conditional approval because
Missouri’s SIP submission provides substantial progress toward
improving air quality, and Missouri has committed to submitting a SIP
revision to meet all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-R07-OAR-2008-0538, by one of the following methods:

1.	  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov : 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

2.	E-mail:  yoshimura.gwen@epa.gov. 

3.	Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier:  Gwen Yoshimura, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas  66101. 

	Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R07-OAR-2008-0538.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or e-mail.  The  
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  website is
an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.  If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

	Docket.  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the  
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas.  EPA requests that
you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection.  The interested persons wanting to
examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at
least 24 hours in advance.  

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Gwen Yoshimura at (913) 551-7073, or
e-mail her at yoshimura.gwen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document “we,” “us,”
or “our” refer to EPA.  

Table of Contents

I.	Background

	A.	The SIP Process

		1.	What is a SIP?

		2.	What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?

		3.	What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?

	B.	Background for the Proposal

II.	Technical Review of the Submittal

	A.	Summary of the State Submittal

		1.	Facility Description

		2.	Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data

		3.	Modeling Results

		4.	Control Strategy

		5.	Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)

		6.	Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

		7.	New Source Review (NSR)

		8.	Contingency Measures

		9.	Enforceability

III.	Proposed Action 

IV.	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I.	Background

	A.	The SIP Process

		1.	What is a SIP?

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to develop
air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state
air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established
by EPA.  These ambient standards are established under section 109 of
the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants.  These
pollutants are:  carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us
for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.  Each
Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air
pollution at its point of origin.  These SIPs can be extensive,
containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and
supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.

		2.	What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?

In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. 
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state
submits it to EPA for inclusion into the Federally-approved SIP.  We
must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding
the proposed Federal action on the state submission.  If adverse
comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal
action by EPA.

All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under
section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP.
 Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52, entitled Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.  The actual state regulations
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright but are incorporated by reference, which means that EPA has
approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

		3.	What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?

Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is incorporated
into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. 
However, after the regulation is Federally approved, EPA is authorized
to take enforcement action against violators.  Citizens are also offered
legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the
CAA.

	B.	Background for the Proposal

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR
46246).  The NAAQS for lead is set at a level of 1.5 micrograms (µg) of
lead per cubic meter (m3) of air, averaged over a calendar quarter.

	During the 1980s and 1990s, Missouri submitted and EPA approved a
number of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for lead to address
ambient lead concentrations in various areas of the state.  One such
area was Herculaneum, Missouri, where a primary lead smelter has been in
operation since 1892.  The primary lead smelter is currently owned and
operated by the Doe Run Resources Company (hereafter referred to as
“Doe Run”).  Doe Run-Herculaneum is the only currently operating
primary lead smelter in the United States.  

The city of Herculaneum was designated nonattainment for lead in 1991
(56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991, codified at 40 CFR 81.326), pursuant to
new authorities provided by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.  The
state also became subject to new SIP requirements under part D, Title I
of the Act, added by the 1990 amendments.  A revised SIP meeting the
part D requirements was subsequently submitted in 1994.  The plan
established June 30, 1995, as the date by which the Herculaneum area was
to attain compliance with the lead standard.  However, the plan did not
result in attainment of the standard and monitored ambient air lead
concentrations in the Herculaneum area continued to show exceedances of
the standard.  Therefore, on August 15, 1997, after taking and
responding to public comments, EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register (62 FR 43647) finding that the Herculaneum nonattainment area
had failed to attain the lead standard by the June 30, 1995, deadline.

	On January 10, 2001, Missouri submitted a revised SIP to EPA for the
Herculaneum area. The SIP contained control measures to reduce lead
emissions to attain the standard, including building enclosure and
ventilation projects, implementation of work practice standards, process
throughput restrictions and hours of operation limitations.  As required
by section 172(c)(9) of the Act, the plan also included contingency
measures to be implemented in the event that there were future
exceedances of the lead standard in Herculaneum.  These consisted of
additional building enclosures and process controls, and a production
curtailment measure.  A 2000 Work Practices Manual, 2001 Consent
Judgment, and Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 “Restriction of Emissions
of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations” were also
included as part of the SIP submittal.  The SIP established August 14,
2002, as the attainment date for the area.  The plan included
permitting, monitoring, and reporting requirements, an emissions
inventory, implementation of all reasonably available control measures
as expeditiously as practicable, provided for attainment of the NAAQS as
demonstrated using modeling, provisions for reasonable further progress
and implementation of contingency measures, and assurances that the
state would be able to implement the plan, thereby satisfying the CAA
section 172(c) nonattainment plan provision requirements.  EPA approved
the SIP on April 16, 2002 (67 FR 18497). 

Doe Run and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) operate
co-located monitors at the Broad Street and Main Street/City Hall
monitoring locations (in addition to other lead monitoring locations in
the nonattainment area).  These monitors are used to show whether or not
the area is in attainment of the standard.  Following the August 2002
attainment date, the Herculaneum area monitored attainment of the lead
standard for 10 consecutive calendar quarters.  In 2005, air quality
monitors in the area again reported exceedances of the 1.5 µg/m3 lead
NAAQS in the first two calendar quarters in 2005.  Monitored values are
quality assured by MDNR and properly entered into the Air Quality
System, EPA’s repository for ambient air monitoring data.  The values
for the first two quarters of 2005 exceed the 1.5 µg/m3 lead standard
and, therefore, constitute exceedances of the standard for each quarter.
 

Typically, an exceedance would trigger implementation of a contingency
measure.  The first set of contingency measures, consisting of
additional building enclosures and process controls, was fully
implemented by Doe Run prior to any monitored exceedances of the lead
NAAQS.  The second contingency measure, a production curtailment, was
implemented following exceedance of the lead standard in the first and
second calendar quarters of 2005.  Despite implementation of all
contingency measures, air monitors in Herculaneum recorded values above
the 1.5 µg/m3 lead standard in the third quarter of 2005.

Because the exceedance recorded in the third quarter of 2005 occurred
despite implementation of all the control measures contained in the SIP,
including all contingency measures developed and implemented to address
exceedances, EPA proposed a SIP call on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75093).
 The SIP call proposed to find the SIP substantially inadequate to
attain and maintain the NAAQS for lead and proposed to require the state
to revise the lead SIP for Herculaneum.  

EPA finalized the SIP call on April 14, 2006 (71 FR 19432).  The SIP
call notified the state of EPA’s finding that the SIP was
substantially inadequate to provide for attainment and maintenance of
the lead NAAQS in Herculaneum, and required the state to submit a
revised SIP. Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA provides that after EPA makes
a finding that a plan is substantially inadequate, it may establish a
reasonable deadline for correcting the deficiencies, but the date can be
no later than 18 months after the state is notified of the finding. 
Based on a number of considerations detailed in the final rule, the SIP
call required submission of the revisions within twelve months following
date of signature of the final rulemaking.  

Along with a deadline for SIP submittal by the state to EPA, the final
SIP call established the date by which the state must demonstrate
attainment of the standard in Herculaneum.  Sections 110(k)(5) and
172(d) of the Act provide that EPA may adjust any SIP deadlines that are
applicable under the Act, except that the attainment date may not be
adjusted unless it has elapsed.  For Herculaneum, the attainment date
had been August 2002 (five years after the state was notified that the
area failed to attain).  The attainment date had elapsed, and the area
was not attaining the standard.  The attainment date could therefore be
adjusted pursuant to section 110(k)(5) and section 172(d) of the Act,
and the state was required to provide for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable.  Based on information described in the final SIP call rule,
EPA established an attainment date of April 7, 2008, two years from the
date of signature of the final rulemaking.  MDNR formally commented in
support of the timelines contained in the SIP call, including the SIP
submittal deadline and attainment date.

	EPA required MDNR to submit several specific plan elements to EPA in
order to correct the inadequacy of the SIP.  These specific elements
were: (1) a revised emissions inventory, (2) a modeling demonstration
showing what reductions would be needed to bring the area back into
attainment of the lead NAAQS, (3) adoption of measures to achieve the
reductions determined necessary by the modeled attainment demonstration,
with enforceable schedules for implementing the measures as
expeditiously as practicable, and (4) contingency measures meeting the
requirements of Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

MDNR completed its revision to the SIP, and on April 26, 2007, the
Missouri Air Conservation Commission approved the SIP revision after
completing the required public notification, public hearing and comment
period.  On May 31, 2007, EPA received Missouri’s revised SIP for the
Herculaneum area.  MDNR submitted supplemental information to EPA on
March 19, 2008.

Since the SIP call was issued in April 2006, Herculaneum air monitors
have recorded additional exceedances of the quarterly lead NAAQS.  In
total, since the third quarter of 2002, exceedances have occurred in
the: first, second, third quarters of 2005; first, third, fourth
quarters of 2006; second and third quarters of 2007; and the first
quarter (January – March) of 2008.  The SIP submittal establishes
April 7, 2008, as the attainment date and requires implementation of all
measures required for attainment by that date.

II.	Technical Review of the Submittal

	A.	Summary of the State Submittal

This SIP builds upon technical information and tools developed under the
previous SIP, improving upon and adding to this information to more
accurately model current conditions.  EPA proposed, and MDNR agreed,
that a shortened timeframe for developing the control strategy was
appropriate given the substantial amount of technical information
already available, early initiation of discussions between the source
(Doe Run) and the state, and the significance of lead as a public health
concern.  The resulting SIP thus builds and improves upon previous
demonstrations to show attainment under current conditions.

Several elements are typically included to produce an attainment
demonstration.  A computer model is selected to predict concentrations
of the pollutant (in this case, lead) in the air under different
scenarios.  The model requires input data, including an emissions
inventory for the identified sources and meteorological data for use in
simulating different weather conditions. Information such as actual
monitored concentrations and filter data may be used to assess the
model’s accuracy.  Finally, control measures are developed and
inserted into the model.  A successful attainment demonstration shows
that the area will attain the standard if all enforceable conditions,
including the proposed control measures, are met.  

The SIP must contain legally enforceable emissions limitations and other
measures necessary to attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
as required by Section 110(a)(2) of the Act.  The SIP submitted by MDNR
contains two regulatory documents: (1) the May 2007 Consent Judgment
between the state of Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR), Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC), and the Doe Run
Resources Company, containing control requirements, associated
implementation schedules, and contingency measures, and (2) the January
2007 Doe Run Herculaneum Smelter Work Practices Manual (WPM), specifying
operational procedures, recordkeeping, and required practices.  Missouri
rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 complements this SIP revision and has been
previously approved by EPA (see generally, 71 FR 33622, June 12, 2006,
for EPA’s approval of the most recent revision).  In addition, the
provisions of paragraphs (B) and (C) of the January 2001 Consent
Judgment, approved as part of the 2002 SIP, remain in full force and
effect, except when inconsistent with the 2007 Consent Judgment.  MDNR
has provided an explanation of the differences between the two
documents, and a justification for the changes from the 2001 Consent
Judgment to the 2007 Consent Judgment.  The 2001 and 2007 Consent
Judgment, 2007 Work Practices Manual, and additional SIP package
documents may be found in the docket for this rulemaking.  The reader is
also referred to EPA’s technical support document contained in the
docket for a more complete discussion of the SIP development and
requirements.  

		1.	Facility Description

The Doe Run-Herculaneum facility was opened in 1892 and is the only
primary lead smelter currently operating in the United States.  The
annual total production capacity of the facility is approximately
250,000 tons of refined lead.

	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 ore, typically 45 percent to 50 percent lead by
weight, is mined from underground ore deposits.  The ore is crushed and
then processed into lead concentrate at the mills.  Lead concentrate
contains 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.

	Once delivered to Herculaneum, the concentrate is first processed
through the sinter plant.  The concentrate is mixed and crushed with
other feedstock materials such as silica, iron ore, and limestone
fluxes.  Recycled process material such as returned sinter, blast
furnace slag, and baghouse fume may also be added to this mixture to
produce the sinter feed.  A thin layer of sinter feed enters the sinter
machine and is ignited by a series of natural gas burners.  A main
sinter feed layer is then laid on top of this ignition layer.  This
layered sinter bed enters the updraft portion of the sinter machine,
where air is drawn across the sinter bed from the bottom to the top,
driving the thermal reaction.  The lead sulfide contained in the feed is
oxidized, producing lead oxide and releasing sulfur dioxide.  Off-gasses
from the sintering process are sent to a baghouse which removes
particulate matter.  The off-gasses continue on to the acid plant where
sulfur dioxide is recovered as sulfuric acid.  The sinter machine
produces a continuous feed of sinter cake (also called sinter roast)
which is crushed and sorted by size.  The larger pieces are transported
to the blast furnace or to temporary storage, while the undersized
pieces return to the mix room to await reprocessing through the sinter
machine.

	Smelting takes place in Doe Run-Herculaneum’s blast furnaces.  Sinter
cake is mixed with coke and other feed materials and transferred to the
top of a furnace.  Air feeds through the bottom of the furnace,
resulting in coke combustion. The coke combustion heats the sinter cake
to approximately 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit and produces carbon monoxide. 
The carbon monoxide reacts with lead and other metal oxides to produce
molten lead, waste slag, and carbon dioxide.  The lead bullion settles
to the bottom of the furnace, where it is tapped into holding pots and
transferred to the drossing area for further refining.  The slag (a
sand-like byproduct with small amounts of lead, copper, zinc, and other
materials) floats to the top of the furnace, is tapped off and either
recycled back into the sinter feed or transported to the slag storage
area at the south end of the facility.  Impurities are further separated
and removed from the lead in the dross/refinery departments.  The lead
bullion from the blast furnace is first transferred to one of the large
drossing kettles where it is allowed to cool.  As the bullion cools,
copper, nickel, and other impurities are skimmed from the surface layer,
known as the “dross.”  Next, the decopperized lead is transferred to
a series of natural gas-heated refining kettles where additional
impurities are removed.  Zinc is added to the lead to facilitate the
removal of silver.  The zinc-silver dross that forms at the surface of
the kettle is removed and then further processed in order to recover the
silver.  Excess zinc is removed by vacuum distillation and chemical
conversion.  The resulting lead is more than 99.999 percent pure and is
cast into 60-pound and 100-pound pigs, as well as 1-ton ingots.  Precise
amounts of other metals may be added to the molten lead in order to
produce lead alloys for specific industrial uses.

		2.	Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data 


When determining what model would be most appropriate to use for the
Herculaneum SIP control strategy modeling, EPA and MDNR considered use
of Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (ISC3P), CALPUFF, and AERMOD
models.  The selected model needed to be able to represent terrain,
emission sources, meteorological conditions, and other parameters.  All
three models were deemed adequate to characterize conditions at
Herculaneum.  MDNR and EPA also wanted to be able to perform a model
performance evaluation on the selected model using recent data.  A model
performance evaluation allows verification that the model is accurately
characterizing emissions from specific sources and accurately predicting
air concentrations.  For Herculaneum, the model performance evaluation
would take advantage of recent monitored concentration data and filter
data.  The model would be run using meteorological data and emissions
information from the same time period as the monitored air concentration
and filter data, allowing for a direct comparison between the modeled
results and the monitored information.  Unfortunately, the on-site
meteorological station did not consistently collect a full suite of data
over the time period in question.  The data it did collect, supplemented
with data from a nearby met station, was adequate for use in the ISC
model.  Calculations used in the AERMOD and CALPUFF models rely on a
larger suite of meteorological parameters and do not work well with
supplemental, off-site information.  Therefore, MDNR and EPA concluded
that recent available meteorological data were not of sufficient
quantity or quality to perform a model performance evaluation in the
newer CALPUFF or AERMOD models.  ISC3P requires a smaller suite of
meteorological data inputs, can be used to assess concentrations from
several types of sources associated with industrial source complexes,
can account for building downwash, urban or rural dispersion
coefficients, flat or elevated terrain, and averaging periods from one
hour to one year.  It was therefore selected as an appropriate model for
this SIP demonstration.

The model performance evaluation which, as described above, compared
modeled results against monitored and filter data, was conducted using
2005 emission inventory and meteorological information as inputs into
the model, and 2005 monitored concentration and filter data.  Once the
model evaluation and refinement was complete, the attainment
demonstration modeling was conducted using quality assured
meteorological data from April 1997 - March 1999 and January – March
2005.  These nine quarters include a large block of time over which a
range of meteorological conditions occurred, as well as a more recent
quarter of data.  Concentrations modeled over these nine quarters of
meteorological data are therefore representative of an assortment of
meteorological conditions, and using these nine quarters of quality
assured data provides confidence that the SIP control strategy was
evaluated over a variety of meteorological conditions.

As required by Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, a revised emission
inventory was developed for this SIP revision.  In general, 2005 hourly
lead emissions were based upon facility daily production records.  Many
of the processes and sources of emissions had not been altered since the
previous SIP and associated emission rates were assumed to be unchanged.
 Rates were estimated using equations developed from source testing at
the facility or from published emission factors.  In some instances, the
emission equations include meteorological parameters to account for
wind-driven emissions.  For more information on these SIP elements, the
reader is referred to the technical support document developed by EPA,
included in the docket for this rulemaking.

		3.	Modeling Results

Actual value dispersion modeling was conducted to determine whether the
model was performing adequately to pursue attainment demonstration
modeling.  This was determined through three comparisons: (1)
determining the model’s ability to replicate monitored daily lead
concentrations, (2) comparing the actual value modeling results with
filter analysis results, and (3) determining the model’s ability to
replicate averaged actual monitored lead concentrations.  The
meteorological data set used in the actual value/model performance
modeling was developed from data collected in 2005.

	The first comparison, evaluating the model output versus the monitored
values on a day-to-day basis, was completed for Broad Street, Main
Street/City Hall, Bluff, and Dunklin High School monitor sites. 
Overall, the model performed well and matched general increases and
decreases in daily values.  The precise predicted daily concentrations
varied from the measured concentrations.  This was attributed to
uncertainties in the meteorological measurements, model algorithms, and
the emission inventory. 

The second comparison looked at the filter analysis versus the model. 
By combining fingerprint data from the previous SIP with updated source
profiles, the filters were analyzed for the percent contribution from
several facility source categories.  This filter analysis source
category percentage contribution profile was compared against the
percentage contribution profile indicated by the modeling.  As a result
of these comparisons, the state modelers identified a modeled
under-prediction of sinter building fugitives.  This was subsequently
corrected in the modeling.  Model results were compiled after the
identified problems were corrected and compared against the filter
analysis.  The filter analysis and model results showed reasonable
agreement.  

The third comparison, looking at the model’s ability to replicate
actual quarterly monitored lead concentrations, also gave favorable
results.  The Sherman monitoring location was added to the four
monitoring locations used in the first comparison.  The Broad Street
monitor is the monitor located closest to the smelter and is the monitor
that has registered the majority of the exceedances since 2002.  At the
Broad Street monitor site the model performed well, over-predicting at
one monitor and under-predicting at the other co-located monitor, and
closely matching the averaged Broad Street site value.  The model
over-predicted concentrations at the other monitors.  The state
concluded that the model adequately predicted values at Broad Street,
and gave conservative, possibly high, predicted concentrations at the
other monitors.  These comparisons showed the model performed adequately
to determine whether the proposed controls would be sufficient to
provide for attainment of the lead NAAQS.

Design value modeling was conducted to identify which sources may be
significant contributors in a hypothetical scenario where all processes
operated for as many hours as possible, and throughput was as high as
possible.  The design value modeling was completed for a worst-case
scenario without consideration of the 2007 proposed controls and without
assuming the controls resulting from the previous 2002 SIP.  Results
from this worst-case scenario modeling indicated sources or groups of
sources that may significantly contribute to lead concentrations. 
Identified source areas included: south-end storage, all process
building fugitives, Baghouse 7/9 stack, Baghouse 8 stack, unloader area,
and in-plant roads.  The state then examined the effectiveness of
existing controls and the technological and economic feasibility for
additional controls at these sources.  

Finally, the control strategy model was developed.  The control strategy
model incorporates all changes made as a result of the actual value
modeling/model refinement runs, and included all control measures
contained in the 2007 SIP.  This required application of capture and/or
control efficiencies to a number of emission points, changing stack
parameters to reflect modified stacks, and limitations on process
throughputs and/or hours of operation.  

One specific set of control efficiencies included in the control
strategy modeling was attributed to process buildings as a result of
operating conditions required by a ventilation study.  The Consent
Judgment requires Doe Run to conduct a building ventilation study for
the Sinter Building, Blast Furnace Building, and Refinery Building. 
Building openings, ventilation sources with either continuous or varying
rates of operation, and a procedure for measuring inflow into the
buildings must be identified within the study.  The study must also
include enforceable conditions developed to ensure that particles
emitted within the process buildings are being appropriately captured by
the ventilation systems.    

The ventilation study works together with door closure and building
siding inspection requirements to achieve an overall objective, or
control measure, of effective building enclosure. By minimizing building
openings and ensuring adequate ventilation, the buildings will be
operated and maintained in such a fashion as to minimize the escape of
fugitive emissions from the buildings.  The SIP requires this overall
building enclosure control measure, and also requires adequate
ventilation in each of the process buildings under the ventilation study
element.  The control strategy modeling attributes a control efficiency
to the overall building enclosure control measure, and this control
efficiency is included in all attainment demonstration calculations. 
Although the adequate ventilation and overall building enclosure control
measures are required under the SIP, the SIP does not include all
necessary enforceable conditions (such as fan amperages or flow rates)
associated with the ventilation study to ensure that these
ventilation-related control measures are met.  Upon MDNR’s approval of
the ventilation study and its findings, the enforceable conditions
identified in the study will become part of the Consent Judgment and/or
Work Practices Manual.  MDNR asserts that it will adopt and submit these
enforceable conditions to EPA by date certain, which will be no later
than one year following any EPA approval of the plan.  See the
“Proposed Actions” section of this rulemaking for EPA’s proposed
approach to address this element of the SIP.

Unless specific hourly or daily operating limitations were applied to a
process or activity, sources at the plant were modeled based on a
quarterly average.  Many emission sources at Doe Run do not run
continuously, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.  However, in
order to account for the variety of meteorological conditions simulated
in the analyses, the model was run using an average emission rate,
calculated assuming 24-hour operation of these sources.  

One source where emissions are not expected to be uniform across all
days is roadways.  The control strategy modeling attributes a 95 percent
control efficiency to paved in-plant roads and paved truck haul routes
external to the plant.  This control percentage was modeled uniformly
across all days modeled.  Given typical operating conditions, the
Herculaneum smelter generally experiences somewhat less activity on
weekends than on weekdays.  The wet sweeper is required to operate a
minimum of Monday through Friday, and the regenerative air sweeper must
operate Monday through Friday as well as any days concentrate is
scheduled for delivery.  The state attributed a control efficiency of 95
percent to the sweepers alone.  Requirements for a
continuously-operating sprinkler system, truck tarping and truck washing
add an additional layer of emission controls.  An average 95 percent
control efficiency was attributed to the paved roads for all days
modeled.  Further discussion on road controls may be found in the
technical support document developed by EPA and included in the docket
for this rulemaking.  

The resulting maximum predicted quarterly lead concentration from the
state’s control strategy modeling was 1.492 µg/m3.  The 1.492 µg/m3
concentration includes a calculated background concentration.  A
background concentration is significant due to its contribution to the
total concentration of lead in ambient air.  The lead NAAQS requires the
concentration of lead, from all sources of lead in ambient air, not to
exceed 1.5 µg/m3.  The state emissions inventory identified the Doe Run
smelter and associated activities as the only lead sources near
Herculaneum.  The state then developed a background concentration to
account for the contribution to monitored concentrations from distant
sources of lead, any naturally occurring lead in the atmosphere, and
sources of lead not captured by the Herculaneum lead emissions
inventory.  It is also possible that the calculated background includes
secondary (e.g., re-entrained historical lead deposition from the plant)
or primary impacts from the smelter and associated activities, some of
which may also be captured by the Herculaneum lead emissions inventory. 
The state believes that in this situation, the background concentration
would be over-estimated and would provide a conservative estimate for
the attainment demonstration analysis.

The background concentration was calculated by examining concentrations
at three geographically dispersed Herculaneum air monitors (Ursaline –
distant south, Bluff – proximate north, and High School – middle
scale northwest).  MDNR identified days when meteorological data
indicated the wind was not blowing from the smelter toward the
individual monitors.  The monitored concentrations associated with these
days were then averaged, resulting in a background concentration of
0.063 µg/m3.  Further detail on how the background concentration was
calculated may be found in the technical support document developed by
EPA and included in the docket for this rulemaking.

		4.	Control Strategy 

In order to bring Herculaneum back into attainment of the lead NAAQS,
MDNR developed a control strategy for Doe Run-Herculaneum.  The control
strategy requires Doe Run-Herculaneum to implement measures to control
emissions from five general areas: building fugitives, baghouse and
stack emissions, storage piles, transportation, and emissions reductions
through production volume and hours of operation restrictions.  A brief
description of controls associated with each follows below.  

Several control measures must be implemented to reduce escape of process
building fugitive emissions to the outside air: (1) automatic door
closure mechanization and lock-out procedures, (2) a requirement for
installation of a south door and specific door closure procedures for
the Railcar Tipper Building, and (3) building siding inspections and
maintenance work practices.  As discussed in the “Modeling Results”
portion of this proposed rulemaking, a study will establish ventilation
parameters, such as minimum fan amperages, necessary to ensure particle
capture by the ventilation systems or particle capture within the
buildings, and compliance with ventilation specifications resulting from
the aforementioned study and specifications will be required under the
Consent Judgment and/or Work Practices Manual.  In addition, fugitive
emissions from specific processes within buildings will also be reduced
through a number of new controls: (1) sinter wheel ventilation
enclosure, (2) blast furnace doghouse ventilation improvement and
redesign of hoods servicing the front of the furnace, (3) automated
blast furnace tuyure controls and interlock control system, and (4)
relocation of blast furnace 1 to reduce ductwork, reduce length of the
charge belt, and potentially increase ventilation flow rates. 

Controls specific to baghouses and stack emissions include: (1)
enclosure of the dust handling sections of the Carrier Cooler Baghouse,
(2) installation of an alarm system for Number 5 Baghouse fans, (3)
pleated filter installation and use in Number 7 & 9 Baghouse, (4) new
bags and installation and use of reverse flow technology for bag
cleaning in Number 3 Baghouse, and (5) visual monitoring of kettle heat
stacks and work practices to address kettle failures.  An additional
feature of the baghouses is an increased stack height for Number 7 & 9
Baghouse, and Number 8 Baghouse stacks.  (These stack height increases
remain below good engineering practice heights.)

Emissions from storage piles and associated materials handling will be
reduced through: (1) partial enclosure of the concentrate delivery area
and full enclosure of the sinter loading area, (2) utilization of drop
sleeves, (3) minimum moisture content requirements for concentrate and
fume, and (4) wetting and chemical stabilization of storage piles.  

Transportation-related emissions will be reduced through: (1) use of
street sweeping technologies on paved roads both inside and outside of
the plant, (2) in-plant sprinklers, (3) wetting and chemical
stabilization of the slag haul road, and (4) haul truck tarp use, tarp
maintenance, and concentrate truck washing before leaving the facility. 

Finally, the May 2007 Consent Judgment and January 2007 Work Practices
Manual also include process throughput limitations and hours of
operation limitations.  Process limits are specified for certain
materials handing operations.  Twenty-four hour maximum allowable and/or
quarterly maximum allowable throughputs are also specified for sinter,
blast furnace, dross, and refinery production processes.  Additional
requirements are contained in the Consent Judgment and Work Practices
Manual submitted as part of this SIP and contained in this rule docket.

EPA requires in 40 CFR part 51, subpart N, that a compliance schedule
generally provide for compliance as soon as practicable, but no later
than the attainment date included in the plan.  The final SIP call
required the state to submit a revised SIP no later than April 7, 2007
(no later than a year after the final SIP call was signed), and for
Herculaneum to attain the lead NAAQS no later than April 7, 2008.  EPA
afforded only a year for development of the plan, and one year after
that for implementation of controls.  This was done because lead is a
significant public health concern, technical information from past SIP
actions was available, and early discussions between the state and Doe
Run about new controls had taken place.  EPA did not believe that less
than a year was appropriate for development of the plan due to the
substantial amount of work required to develop a SIP revision.  In order
to develop a revised lead SIP, the state would need to develop a revised
emissions inventory to characterize the plant’s current conditions and
operations, create a model to reflect conditions at Herculaneum,
evaluate and refine the model, determine where new controls might reduce
emissions, evaluate the feasibility of any such controls, and develop a
control strategy that modeled attainment of the standard.  In
recognition of the time involved with each of these efforts, and the
amount of time it takes to complete large construction projects, EPA
believed that the deadlines contained in the SIP call would require
attainment as expeditiously as practicable. 

A compliance schedule for implementation of controls is detailed in the
Consent Judgment.  All controls described above were included in the
attainment demonstration modeling (also called the control strategy
modeling), with the exception of control measures the state felt
provided reassurances that emissions would be reduced but did not feel
warranted its own control efficiency.  The state’s attainment
demonstration modeling predicted a maximum quarterly concentration of
1.492 µg/m3.  Further discussion of the individual controls may be
found in EPA’s technical support document included in this docket. The
Consent Judgment schedule provides for compliance as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than April 7, 2008.  EPA believes that the
control strategy and the compliance schedule contained in the control
strategy, with the exception of the ventilation controls discussed in
the “Proposed Actions” portion of this document, provide for
attainment as expeditiously as practicable, and otherwise meet the
applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act.

		5.	Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) including Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) 

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires nonattainment areas to implement
all RACM, including emissions reduction 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.  See 58 FR 67751, December
22, 1993, for a discussion of this interpretation as it relates to lead.
 

In the April 14, 2006, SIP call, EPA did not list a new RACT analysis as
a required element of the SIP submittal.  Even though not required by
the 2006 SIP call, a RACT/RACM analysis is still included with the 2007
SIP submittal.  No additional RACT measures were identified that would
expedite attainment or reasonable further progress, and the plant has
not changed significantly from when the previous RACT/RACM evaluation
was completed.  Some previously implemented RACT/RACM measures, i.e.,
types of controls, were strengthened through incorporation of more
detailed, enforceable work practices in the Work Practices Manual. 
Although not directly relevant to RACT/RACM, we note that the
Herculaneum primary lead smelter is also subject to 40 CFR Part 63
subpart TTT, the Federal MACT standard for Primary Lead Smelters. 
Subpart TTT requires the development and use of standard operating
procedures manuals for all baghouses controlling process, process
fugitive, or fugitive lead dust emissions.

Dispersion modeling analysis was conducted to determine if the controls
required by the 2007 Consent Judgment control strategy would be
sufficient to bring the area into attainment of the standard.  The
dispersion modeling submitted by the state showed attainment of the 1.5
µg/m3 standard, demonstrating that the control strategy is adequate to
bring the area into attainment of the standard.  In terms of expeditious
attainment we again note that the time between the SIP submission
deadline and the attainment date is only one year, so that additional
measures which could be implemented within that year and achieve
reductions before the end of that year would be even less likely.  For
the reasons stated above, EPA proposes to find that no additional
measures will expedite attainment and that the RACT/RACM requirement is
met.

	6.	Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

	Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires SIPs to provide for Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) as defined in section 171(1) of the CAA.  Section
171(1) 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.  

MDNR has demonstrated RFP as required under section 172(c)(2) of the
CAA.  Doe Run is subject to a compliance schedule for implementing: (1)
installation of emission control equipment, (2) enclosure and
ventilation projects to reduce lead emissions, (3) process throughput
restrictions and hours of operation limitations, and (4) work practice
standards.  These are but a few of the SIP controls that are enforceable
through the Consent Judgment and/or the Work Practices Manual.  Given
that all controls contained in the control strategy were required to be
implemented by April 7, 2008, to provide for attainment by April 7,
2008, EPA does not believe additional incremental reductions are
necessary to meet the RFP requirement.  EPA also notes that, since all
of the new controls in the SIP were required to be implemented within
one year of development of the control strategy (April 2007 to April
2008), and that these controls have been demonstrated to be adequate for
attainment, we believe that these controls represent the annual
reductions necessary for RFP and attainment.

	7.	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.  The SIP call did not require revision to these rules. 
Both rules have been previously approved by EPA as part of the SIP, as
meeting the requirements of section 173 of the Clean Air Act, and EPA
implementing rules in 40 CFR 51.165.  

		8.	Contingency Measures

As required by CAA section 172(c)(9), the SIP submittal includes
contingency measures to be implemented if EPA determines that
Herculaneum has failed to make reasonable further progress, or if the
area fails to attain the NAAQS by April 7, 2008, as set forth in the SIP
call (71 FR 19432).  If the area has an exceedance of the NAAQS during
any quarter following the April 7, 2008, attainment date, the
contingency measures will be implemented according to the schedule
outlined in the May 2007 Consent Judgment, upon written notification of
violation from MDNR.  MDNR may also require implementation of
contingency measures if the control strategy projects are not completed
as required in the Consent Judgment.  

Within six months of receipt of such a notice, Doe Run is required to
complete contingency measure (a) enclosure of the sinter plant
“pugger,” and contingency measure (b) paving of the slag haul road
from the north end of the blast furnace to the refinery dock.  Following
implementation of these two projects, if any quarter exceeds the
standard or Doe Run fails to make reasonable further progress (in this
instance, timely implementation of control measures), MDNR will notify
Doe Run and contingency measure (c) rerouting of the kettle heat stacks
to the main stack, is required to be completed within 18 months of
receipt of the notice.  

In addition, if an exceedance of the quarterly lead NAAQS occurs, the
quarterly production limit for refined lead is required to be reduced to
95% of the actual production during the exceedance quarter.  The refined
lead production limit will be reduced by an additional 5% below actual
production for each subsequent quarter in which there is an exceedance,
to a minimum production of 35,000 tons of refined lead per calendar
quarter.  In the event that all monitors show attainment in a quarter
following a production decrease, the production level for refined lead
may be increased by 5% of the attainment quarter’s actual production
provided that Doe Run implements additional control measures prior to
increasing the production level.  Doe Run must demonstrate to MDNR that
these control measures reduce impacts on air quality to an equal or
greater extent than the increased production limit will increase impacts
on air quality.  In addition, any substitution of control measures is
subject to EPA approval through the SIP revision process described
below.  Production may increase to a maximum of 62,500 tons per calendar
quarter (the level assumed in the attainment demonstration modeling), if
the area continues to monitor attainment of the NAAQS.  

	The Consent Judgment further outlines two additional contingency
measures to be implemented in the event that exceedances occur after
implementation of the contingency measures described above.  Contingency
measure (d) requires implementation of contingency measures identified
as a result of a technological study for fugitive dust control.  These
not-yet identified measures would be implemented within a time frame to
be determined by Doe Run and MDNR.  Contingency measure (e) would
require installation of dedicated ventilation to the sinter plant or
implementation of Flubor© technology at the Herculaneum facility.  This
contingency would be required if an exceedance is monitored or Doe Run
fails to make reasonable further progress after implementation of
contingency measure (c) routing of kettle heat stacks to the main stack,
and contingency measure (d) contingencies identified by the fugitive
dust control study to be implemented according to a currently undefined
schedule. 

Section 172(c)(9) of the Act provides that contingency measures must be
capable of implementation without any further action by the state or
EPA.  While EPA supports implementation of the activities described in
contingency measures (d) and (e), because these two projects do not
contain specific requirements and/or associated deadlines, EPA does not
consider them contingency measures under section 172(c)(9) of the Act. 
EPA therefore proposes to only include contingency measures (a)
enclosure of the pugger, (b) paving of haul road, (c) rerouting of
kettle heat stacks, and the percent production cuts as contingency
measures under the Federally-enforceable SIP.

	Doe Run must notify MDNR within 10 days of completion of any
contingency measure.  Sixty days after completion, Doe Run will propose
an additional quantified contingency measure to be added to the Consent
Judgment, which will become part of the Consent Judgment and fully
enforceable upon approval by MDNR.  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 above contingency
measure(s) if Doe Run identifies and demonstrates to MDNR and EPA’s
satisfaction the alternate control measure(s) would achieve equal or
greater air quality improvements as compared to the contingency measures
currently outlined in the Consent Judgment.  

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 will be the enforceable measure.  EPA does not intend to
approve any substitutions which cannot be implemented in the same
timeframe as the original.  These measures will help ensure compliance
with the lead NAAQS as well as meet the requirements of Section
172(c)(9) of the CAA.  

	9.	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.  Enforceable documents included in
Missouri’s SIP submittal are the May 2007 Consent Judgment and January
2007 Work Practices Manual.  The Consent Judgment contains all control
and contingency measures with enforceable dates for implementation.  The
only exception relates to the enforceable requirements for the
ventilation controls, discussed above and in section III below.  The
Consent Judgment also includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to ensure that the control and contingency measures are
met.  The Work Practices Manual includes these, as well as specific
operating procedures and additional reporting requirements.  The state
adopted both documents into Missouri’s state regulations on April 26,
2007, making them state-enforceable.  Upon EPA approval of the SIP
submission, both documents will become state and Federally enforceable,
and enforceable by citizens under section 304 of the Act.  

We note that the Consent Judgment also contains provisions for
stipulated penalties and sanctions should Doe Run fail to comply with
provisions of the Consent Judgment or Work Practices Manual.  EPA is not
bound by the state’s Consent Judgment penalties, and would enforce
against violations of these documents under section 113 of the Clean Air
Act or other Federal authorities, rather than the Consent Judgment, if
it approves the Consent Judgment and Work Practices Manual into the SIP.

III.  Proposed Action 

	In a July 9, 1992, memorandum from John Calcagni, EPA discussed the
options for actions on SIP submissions.  One such option, conditional
approval, is authorized under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA and is
available where a rule strengthens the SIP even though the entire
submittal does not meet all applicable requirements.  A conditional
approval requires a commitment from the state to adopt specific
enforceable measures within a specific timeframe.  The measures must be
adopted no later than one year from the date of EPA’s final
conditional approval.  EPA is proposing to grant conditional approval
for Missouri’s attainment demonstration SIP for the lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standard nonattainment area of Herculaneum,
Missouri.  By date certain, which will be no later than one year
following any EPA approval of the plan, the state asserts that it will
adopt and submit to EPA enforceable measures related to ventilation of
the process buildings described previously.   

As described in this proposed rulemaking’s “Modeling Results”
section, one set of control measures contained in this SIP submittal
requires creation of enforceable conditions to ensure appropriate
building ventilation for particle capture.  MDNR has not approved
enforceable conditions such as fan amperages or flow rates related to
this control.  Therefore, although the SIP includes enforceable measures
(building enclosure and adequate ventilation measures) related to this
control, the ventilation requirements do not currently contain all
necessary enforceable conditions to ensure that the provisions are met. 
The ventilation study and resulting reduction in building fugitive
emissions is a significant element of the proposed control strategy, and
these projected emissions reductions contribute significantly to the
control strategy modeling showing attainment.  EPA does not believe it
is appropriate to give full approval to the SIP until the ventilation
study and associated enforceable conditions are submitted by the state,
reviewed by EPA, and made available for public comment.  

EPA proposes conditional approval of the SIP as it provides substantial
progress toward improving air quality, and the State asserts that it
will adopt and submit the missing elements to EPA by date certain, which
will be no later than one year following any EPA approval of the plan. 
If EPA reviews and finds the ventilation control conditions adequate,
EPA will publish and take comment on a supplemental proposal relating to
the ventilation control conditions.  This supplemental proposal may
include a proposal to fully approve the SIP.  

If the state does not submit the control strategy element described
above by date certain, which will be no later than one year following
any EPA approval of the plan, and EPA takes final action to
conditionally approve the revised lead SIP, the conditional approval
will convert to a disapproval, as provided by section 110(k)(4) of the
Act.  In that instance, all portions of the revision not related to the
ventilation study portion of the control strategy will remain in effect.
 However, disapproval of the ventilation study portion will start a
clock for implementation of Clean Air Act sanctions under section
179(b), and a clock for promulgation of a Federal implementation plan
under section 110(c)(1) of the Act.  

IV.	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

		Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.  Accordingly,
this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.  For that reason, this proposed action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);  

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);  

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997); 

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act; and 

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated:  September 30, 2008.________   	/s/ John B.
Askew_______________________

					John B. Askew,

						Regional Administrator,

						Region 7.

  PAGE  33 

