Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard, 52190-52194 [2015-21199]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
52190
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have
implications for federalism.
6. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
12. Energy Effects
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
13. Technical Standards
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
14. Environment
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have determined that this action is one
of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves
establishment of a temporary safety
zone to protect persons and property
from potential hazards associated with
the scheduled Lumiere Place Fireworks
display taking place on or over the
Upper Mississippi River. This rule is
categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure
2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.
10. Protection of Children
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
11. Indian Tribal Governments
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
8. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not cause a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
9. Civil Justice Reform
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:56 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, AND 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Temporary § 165.T08–0540 is
added to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 165.T08–0540 Safety Zone; Upper
Mississippi River between MM 180.0 and
180.5; St. Louis, MN.
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All waters of the Upper
Mississippi River between MM 180.0
and 180.5, St. Louis, MO, extending the
entire width of the river.
(b) Effective dates. This rule is
effective from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on
August 29, 2015.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23 of
this part, entry into, movement within,
or departure from this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
COTP Upper Mississippi River or a
designated representative.
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry
into, departure from, or movement
within a regulated area must request
permission from the COTP Upper
Mississippi River or a designated
representative. They may be contacted
on VHF–FM Channel 16, or through
Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi
River at (314) 269–2332.
(3) All persons and vessels shall
comply with the instruction of the
COTP Upper Mississippi River and
designated on-scene personnel.
(d) Informational Broadcasts. The
COTP Upper Mississippi River or a
designated representative will inform
the public through Broadcast Notice to
Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners,
and/or Safety Marine Information
Broadcasts as appropriate of the
enforcement period for each safety zone
as well as any changes in the planned
and published dates and times of
enforcement.
Dated: August 13, 2015.
M.L. Malloy,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Sector Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2015–21373 Filed 8–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0223; FRL–9933–09–
Region 7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Missouri; 2013 Missouri State
Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State
of Missouri. This final action will
approve Missouri’s SIP for the Buick/
Viburnum Trend lead National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
nonattainment area near Boss, Missouri.
EPA proposed approval of this plan on
June 1, 2015. The applicable standard
addressed in this action is the lead
NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008.
EPA believes Missouri’s SIP satisfies the
applicable requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) identified in EPA’s 2008
Final Rule and will bring the area into
attainment of the 0.15 micrograms per
cubic meter (ug/m3) lead NAAQS in the
Buick/Viburnum Trend, Missouri area.
In this action, EPA is also finalizing
its approval of a revision to the Missouri
SIP to incorporate an amendment to an
existing Missouri regulation to restrict
lead emissions from specific sources.
The amendment revises certain
throughput and emissions limits
applicable to the Buick Resource
Recycling Facility (BRRF) in the Buick/
Viburnum Trend lead nonattainment
area. Approval of this rule ensures
consistency between the state and
Federally-approved rules, and ensures
Federal enforceability of the revised
state rule.
This final rule is effective on
September 28, 2015.
DATES:
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0223. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa,
Kansas 66219. The Regional Office’s
official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays. The
interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Doolan, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:56 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
(913) 551–7719, or by email at
doolan.stephanie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section
provides additional information by
addressing the following:
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a
SIP revision been met?
III. EPA’s Response to Comments
IV. What action is EPA taking?
I. What is being addressed in this
document?
In this document, EPA is granting
final approval of Missouri’s SIP for the
lead NAAQS nonattainment area of
Buick/Viburnum Trend. The applicable
standard addressed in this action is the
lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in
2008 (73 FR 66964). EPA is also granting
final approval to portions of a revision
to the State of Missouri Code of State
Regulations (CSR) 10–6.120,
‘‘Restriction of Emissions of Lead from
Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery
Installations’’. This revision pertains to
throughput limits applicable to the
BRRF, which is the primary source of
lead emissions in the Buick/Viburnum
Trend nonattainment area. EPA’s
proposal containing the background
information for this action can be found
at 80 FR 30965, June 1, 2015.
II. Have the requirements for approval
of a SIP revision been met?
The state submission has met the
public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR
51.102. The submission also satisfied
the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. In addition, as
explained above and in more detail in
the technical support document which
is part of the docket, the revision meets
the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including Section 110 and
implementing regulations.
III. EPA’s Response to Comments
The public comment period on EPA’s
proposed rule opened June 1, 2015, the
date of its publication in the Federal
Register, and closed on July 1, 2015.
During this period, EPA received one
comment letter from the Doe Run
Resource Recycling Division dated July
1, 2015. The comment letter and EPA’s
responses are summarized below.
Comment 1: The commenter states
that in the June 1, 2015, proposed
approval that the nomenclature for the
Buick/Viburnum Trend nonattainment
area is inconsistent. Doe Run requests
that the term ‘‘Buick/Viburnum Trend’’
be used throughout. Doe Run also states
that the secondary lead smelter
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52191
nomenclature is incorrectly stated as
‘‘the Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling
Facility (BRRF)’’ and requests EPA to
correct the nomenclature to use ‘‘The
Buick Resource Recycling Facility
(BRRF)’’ throughout.
Response 1: This comment
recommends typographical corrections
to the proposed rule that EPA has not
relied upon in its decision making for
this final action, and EPA is therefore
not changing its final action based on
this comment.
Comment 2: Doe Run states that the
heading for section V.A.1. in the
proposal is titled ‘‘BRRF Process
Description,’’ but that it contains both
the BRRF process description and a
discussion of the mine activities. Doe
Run requests that the section be retitled
as ‘‘Buick/Viburnum Trend Process
Description.’’
Response 2: See Response 1.
Comment 3: Doe Run notes that
section V.A.1. states ‘‘BRRF operates as
a secondary smelter of lead, leadcontaining materials including spent
lead acid batteries, lead bullets and
shot, lead-containing glass from cathode
ray tubes, and lead-based paint chips
from lead abatement projects.’’ Doe Run
requests that the statement be revised to
more accurately reflect the facility
operations by stating that ‘‘BRRF
operates as a secondary lead smelter of
lead, utilizing lead-containing materials
including spent lead acid batteries, lead
bullets and shot, lead-containing glass
from cathode ray tubes, lead-based paint
chips from lead abatement projects, and
other lead bearing materials.’’
Response 3: EPA notes that the
process information provided in section
V of the proposal was reproduced from
Missouri’s attainment SIP which was
made available for a 30-day public
comment period before the document
was submitted to EPA. EPA appreciates
this comment as it clarifies processrelated information. However, this
comment does not substantively impact
the decision to approve the attainment
SIP, and EPA is therefore not changing
its proposed action based on this
comment.
Comment 4: Doe Run notes that in the
first paragraph of section V.A.1., EPA
states that ‘‘Crushed and concentrated
lead containing ore was formerly
processed at the Herculaneum primary
lead smelter, but since that facility
ceased primary lead smelting in
December 2013, the ore gets shipped out
of the U.S. for overseas processing.’’ Doe
Run requests this statement to instead
read, ‘‘The processed ore, called lead
concentrate was formerly processed at
the Herculaneum primary lead smelter,
but since that facility ceased primary
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
52192
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
lead smelting in December 2013, the
lead concentrate is currently shipped
out of the U.S. for overseas processing.’’
Response 4: Please see Response 3.
Comment 5: Doe Run requests that
EPA revise the third paragraph of
section V.A.1. from ‘‘BRRF’s production
is limited to 175,000 tons of total lead
production each year . . .’’ to ‘‘175,000
tons of total refined lead production per
year . . .’’
Response 5: EPA disagrees. Section
V.A.1. refers to the lead production
limit in Missouri regulation 10 Code of
State Regulation (CSR) 10–6.120, which
states that ‘‘This installation [BRRF]
shall limit total lead production to one
hundred seventy-five thousand
(175,000) tons per year.’’ 10 CSR 10–
6.120 does not make a distinction
between total lead production and total
refined lead production.
Comment 6: In paragraph three of
section V.A.1., EPA states that ‘‘Spent
batteries are stored in a battery bunker
until processed in a shredder.’’ Doe Run
requests that the statement read: ‘‘Spent
batteries are stored in the containerized
storage area until processed in the
battery shredder.’’
Response 6: Please see Response 3.
Comment 7: In section V.A.1., EPA
states that ‘‘The batteries further
undergo a separation process under
which the lead and metal parts are
separated from the plastic and other
debris.’’ Doe Run requests that this
statement be revised as follows: ‘‘The
batteries further undergo a separation
process under which the lead and metal
parts are separated from the plastic and
other materials.’’ Doe Run also requests
EPA to change ‘‘The plastic and other
debris are skimmed off and sent to
recycling facilities’’ to ‘‘The plastic is
skimmed off and sent to recycling
facilities.’’
Response 7: Please see Response 3.
Comment 8: In section V.A.1, the fifth
paragraph states that ‘‘The lead sulfate
paste is passed through a filter press and
neutralized with hydrated lime to form
calcium sulfate . . .’’ Doe Run requests
that this statement be revised to read:
‘‘The lead sulfate paste is passed
through a filter press . . .’’
Response 8: Please see Response 3.
Comment 9: Regarding the first
paragraph in section V.A.2, Doe Run
disagrees with EPA’s statement that the
annual lead emissions from the Casteel
Mine and the K & D Crushing
Operations are ‘‘significant’’ to the total
emissions of 18.34 tons per year. Doe
Run further requests a change in EPA’s
statement from ‘‘processing of lead
containing rock until it becomes wet
concentrate that is shipped to other
customers,’’ to ‘‘processing of lead
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:56 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
containing rock to produce lead
concentrate to be shipped to
customers.’’
Response 9: The commenter makes
two separate comments in its ‘‘Ninth’’
comment per the progression of its
comment letter. For consistency in
numbering, EPA is also addressing these
comments together.
Regarding Doe Run’s comment that
the Casteel Mine and the K & D
Crushing Operations are not
‘‘significant’’ to the total emissions of
18.34 tons per year, EPA disagrees. In
Section 3, Emissions Inventory, of
Missouri’s attainment SIP, four
facilities, including the Casteel Mine
and K & D Crushing, are listed that
reported more than 0.01 tpy lead for
inventory years 2009 through 2011.
Missouri has determined that these
facilities are significant and required
modeling in order to determine their
impacts at the monitor. This comment
does not substantively impact the
decision to approve the attainment SIP,
and EPA is therefore not changing its
proposed action based on this comment.
As summarized above, Doe Run has
commented on the wording of the third
sentence in the first paragraph of section
V.A.2. Please see Response 1.
Comment 10: In the third paragraph of
section V.A.2, EPA states that ‘‘At the
Buick Mine and Mill, ore is hauled from
the active mining faces to a central
crusher where it is crushed . . .’’ Doe
Run requests this sentence to be revised
to state, ‘‘At the Buick Mine and Mill,
ore is hauled from the active mining
faces to an underground central crusher
where it is crushed . . .’’
Additionally, in this same paragraph,
EPA states that ‘‘After being crushed
aboveground to less than 5⁄8-inch in size,
the ore subjected to wet milling and
grinding with rods and ball mills . . .’’
Doe Run has requested the word ‘‘is’’ to
be inserted between ‘‘ore’’ and
‘‘subjected.’’
Response 10: Please see Response 1.
Comment 11: In the fourth paragraph
of section V.A.2., EPA states ‘‘As stated
above, the Herculaneum facility ceased
operations smelting operations in
December 2013; thus, the concentrate is
shipped overseas to primary lead
smelting operations or other
customers.’’ Doe Run requests this
sentence be revised to state ‘‘As stated
above, the Herculaneum facility ceased
smelting operations in December 2013;
thus, the concentrate is shipped
overseas to customers’ primary lead
smelting operations or other
customers.’’
Response 11: Please see Response 1.
Comment 12: Doe Run commented
that ‘‘mg/m3’’ had been incorrectly used
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
in the proposal instead of ‘‘mg/m3’’
throughout the document.
Response 12: EPA checked the
Federal Register proposed rule at
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=EPA-R07-OAR2015-0223-0001 and found that the
correct units, mg/m3, were used. No
change is necessary.
Comment 13: Section V.D.f. states that
‘‘By February 4, 2013, install a dry lime
SO2 scrubber to further process gases as
they exit the pulse-jet baghouse . . .’’
Doe Run comments that this statement
does not accurately reflect the language
of the Consent Decree and it should read
‘‘By February 4, 2013, install a dry lime
SO2 scrubber to further process the exit
gas stream before routing reverberatory
furnace process to the main stack.’’
Response 13: EPA agrees but notes
that the requirement is not in the
Consent Decree but rather is found in
paragraph V, item 6.F. of the 2013
Consent Judgment (appendix M of the
attainment SIP). As stated in the
proposal, Section V.D. contains a brief
discussion of the control measures. This
comment further describes those control
measures, but does not substantively
impact the decision to approve the
attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore not
changing its proposed action based on
this comment.
Comment 14: Doe Run comments that
section V.D.i. references item a.;
however, it should reference item b.
Response 14: EPA agrees. EPA notes
that Section 5.1, Consent Judgment
Measures, of Missouri’s attainment SIP
also references item A. However, as
depicted in the process flow diagram on
page A–7 in Appendix A of Missouri’s
attainment SIP, for the reverberatory
furnace, EPA notes that Doe Run is
correct; the Dry Scrubber Baghouse
CD37 follows the exit gases from the
reverberatory furnace and is not part of
the South Refinery described in item a.
(depicted on page A–9 of Missouri’s
attainment SIP). This comment does not
substantively impact the decision to
approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is
therefore not changing its proposed
action based on this comment.
Comment 15: Section V.D.j. states that
‘‘By October 31, 2014, install ‘‘batwing’’
style ventilation covers to improve
. . .’’ Doe Run requests that this
language be revised to state ‘‘By October
31, 2014, install ‘‘batwing’’ style
ventilation covers, or covers with
equivalent or better capture efficiency to
improve . . .’’
Response 15: As stated in the
proposal, Section V.D. contains a brief
discussion of the control measures. This
comment further describes those control
measures, but does not substantively
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
impact the decision to approve the
attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore not
changing its proposed action based on
this comment.
Comment 16: The fourth paragraph of
section V. E. refers to the ‘‘mines and
mills.’’ The statement should be revised
to refer specifically to the ‘‘Buick Mine
and Mill and the Casteel Mine.’’
Response 16: Please see Response 1.
Comment 17: In section V.H.a., EPA
states that the negative pressure
requirement is in ‘‘inches Hg.’’ Doe Run
comments that the correct units are
‘‘mm Hg.’’
Response 17: Please see Response 1.
Comment 18: Doe Run requests EPA
to refer in the first paragraph of section
VI.B.to the limits of Missouri regulation
10–6.120 as ‘‘175,000 tons of refined
lead per year.’’ Also, Doe Run comments
that in section VI.B. the proposal should
consistently refer to ‘‘lead’’ rather than
‘‘Pb.’’
Response 18: With regard to 10 CSR
10–6.120, please see Response 5. With
regard to the use the words ‘‘lead’’ and
‘‘Pb,’’ interchangeably, please see
Response 1.
Comment 19: In the third paragraph of
section VI.B., EPA states that ‘‘The
modeled total emissions in the
attainment demonstration SIP are
176,482 tons of Pb produced per year.’’
Doe Run requests that this sentence be
revised to state ‘‘The modeled total
emissions in the attainment
demonstration SIP are based on 176,482
tons of refined lead produced per year.’’
Response 19: EPA agrees that the
sentence should indicate that the
‘‘modeled total emissions in the
attainment demonstration SIP are based
on 176,482 tons of lead produced per
year. As discussed above in Responses
5 and 18, the language ‘‘refined’’ is not
found in the Missouri regulation.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is taking final action to amend
the Missouri SIP to approve Missouri’s
SIP for the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead
NAAQS nonattainment area near Boss,
Missouri. The applicable standard
addressed in this action is the lead
NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008
(73 FR 66964). EPA is also granting final
approval to portions of a revision to the
State of Missouri CSR 10–6.120,
‘‘Restriction of Emissions of Lead from
Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery
Installations’’.
Incorporation by Reference
In this action, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:56 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
incorporation by reference of Missouri
Rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 (with the
exclusions of Paragraph 10–6.120
(3)(B)1. and Table 1, and the 0.00087 gr/
dscf main stack emissions limit for
BRRF) described in the amendments to
40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available
electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the
appropriate EPA office (see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action
is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this
rulemaking will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). Because this rulemaking would
approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action.
This action merely approves a state rule
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52193
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rulemaking also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a
state rule implementing a Federal
standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a state submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA when it reviews a state submission,
to use VCS in place of a state
submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the CAA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This action does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this proposed rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 27, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this proposed rule
does not affect the finality of this
rulemaking for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
52194
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
postpone the effectiveness of such
future rule or action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 18, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA—Missouri
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
2. In § 52. 1320 amend the table in
paragraph (c) by revising the entry for
Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 and the
table in paragraph (d) by adding entry
(29) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1320
*
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS
Missouri citation
State effective
date
Title
EPA approval date
Explanation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of
Missouri
*
10–6.120 ........................
*
*
Restriction of Emissions
of Lead from Specific
Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations.
*
*
*
*
*
*
3/30/09
*
*
*
*
8/28/15 and [Insert
Federal Register citation].
*
*
*
Paragraph (3)(B)1 and Table, Provision Pertaining to Limitations of Lead Emissions from
Specific Installations, have not been approved as a part of the SIP.
The requirement to limit main stack lead emissions at BRRF to 0.00087 gr/dscf lead in
Paragraph (3)(B)2 has not been approved as
a part of the SIP.
*
*
*
(d) * * *
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS
Name of source
Order/permit number
State effective
date
EPA approval date
Explanation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
*
*
(29) Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Consent Judgment 13IR–CC00016
*
[FR Doc. 2015–21199 Filed 8–27–15; 8:45 am]
7/29/13
*
*
8/28/15 [Insert Federal Register
citation]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
40 CFR Part 271
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
[EPA–R05–RCRA–2014–0689; FRL–9933–
29—Region 5]
Michigan: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:56 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Final rule.
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
Michigan applied to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for final authorization of certain changes
to its hazardous waste program under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). On March 31,
2015, EPA published a proposed rule to
authorize the changes and opened a
public comment period under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2014–0689. The
comment period closed on June 1, 2015.
EPA received no comments on the
proposed rule. EPA has decided that the
changes to Michigan’s program satisfy
all requirements necessary to qualify for
final authorization, and EPA is
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52190-52194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21199]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223; FRL-9933-09-Region 7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead
Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to
[[Page 52191]]
approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State
of Missouri. This final action will approve Missouri's SIP for the
Buick/Viburnum Trend lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
nonattainment area near Boss, Missouri. EPA proposed approval of this
plan on June 1, 2015. The applicable standard addressed in this action
is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes Missouri's
SIP satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
identified in EPA's 2008 Final Rule and will bring the area into
attainment of the 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m\3\) lead NAAQS
in the Buick/Viburnum Trend, Missouri area.
In this action, EPA is also finalizing its approval of a revision
to the Missouri SIP to incorporate an amendment to an existing Missouri
regulation to restrict lead emissions from specific sources. The
amendment revises certain throughput and emissions limits applicable to
the Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF) in the Buick/Viburnum
Trend lead nonattainment area. Approval of this rule ensures
consistency between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensures
Federal enforceability of the revised state rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on September 28, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas
66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The
interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Doolan, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7719, or by email at
doolan.stephanie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. EPA's Response to Comments
IV. What action is EPA taking?
I. What is being addressed in this document?
In this document, EPA is granting final approval of Missouri's SIP
for the lead NAAQS nonattainment area of Buick/Viburnum Trend. The
applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS
promulgated by EPA in 2008 (73 FR 66964). EPA is also granting final
approval to portions of a revision to the State of Missouri Code of
State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.120, ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead
from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations''. This revision
pertains to throughput limits applicable to the BRRF, which is the
primary source of lead emissions in the Buick/Viburnum Trend
nonattainment area. EPA's proposal containing the background
information for this action can be found at 80 FR 30965, June 1, 2015.
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical
support document which is part of the docket, the revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including Section 110 and
implementing regulations.
III. EPA's Response to Comments
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened June 1,
2015, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed
on July 1, 2015. During this period, EPA received one comment letter
from the Doe Run Resource Recycling Division dated July 1, 2015. The
comment letter and EPA's responses are summarized below.
Comment 1: The commenter states that in the June 1, 2015, proposed
approval that the nomenclature for the Buick/Viburnum Trend
nonattainment area is inconsistent. Doe Run requests that the term
``Buick/Viburnum Trend'' be used throughout. Doe Run also states that
the secondary lead smelter nomenclature is incorrectly stated as ``the
Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF)'' and requests EPA to
correct the nomenclature to use ``The Buick Resource Recycling Facility
(BRRF)'' throughout.
Response 1: This comment recommends typographical corrections to
the proposed rule that EPA has not relied upon in its decision making
for this final action, and EPA is therefore not changing its final
action based on this comment.
Comment 2: Doe Run states that the heading for section V.A.1. in
the proposal is titled ``BRRF Process Description,'' but that it
contains both the BRRF process description and a discussion of the mine
activities. Doe Run requests that the section be retitled as ``Buick/
Viburnum Trend Process Description.''
Response 2: See Response 1.
Comment 3: Doe Run notes that section V.A.1. states ``BRRF operates
as a secondary smelter of lead, lead-containing materials including
spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets and shot, lead-containing glass
from cathode ray tubes, and lead-based paint chips from lead abatement
projects.'' Doe Run requests that the statement be revised to more
accurately reflect the facility operations by stating that ``BRRF
operates as a secondary lead smelter of lead, utilizing lead-containing
materials including spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets and shot,
lead-containing glass from cathode ray tubes, lead-based paint chips
from lead abatement projects, and other lead bearing materials.''
Response 3: EPA notes that the process information provided in
section V of the proposal was reproduced from Missouri's attainment SIP
which was made available for a 30-day public comment period before the
document was submitted to EPA. EPA appreciates this comment as it
clarifies process-related information. However, this comment does not
substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and
EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this
comment.
Comment 4: Doe Run notes that in the first paragraph of section
V.A.1., EPA states that ``Crushed and concentrated lead containing ore
was formerly processed at the Herculaneum primary lead smelter, but
since that facility ceased primary lead smelting in December 2013, the
ore gets shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.'' Doe Run
requests this statement to instead read, ``The processed ore, called
lead concentrate was formerly processed at the Herculaneum primary lead
smelter, but since that facility ceased primary
[[Page 52192]]
lead smelting in December 2013, the lead concentrate is currently
shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.''
Response 4: Please see Response 3.
Comment 5: Doe Run requests that EPA revise the third paragraph of
section V.A.1. from ``BRRF's production is limited to 175,000 tons of
total lead production each year . . .'' to ``175,000 tons of total
refined lead production per year . . .''
Response 5: EPA disagrees. Section V.A.1. refers to the lead
production limit in Missouri regulation 10 Code of State Regulation
(CSR) 10-6.120, which states that ``This installation [BRRF] shall
limit total lead production to one hundred seventy-five thousand
(175,000) tons per year.'' 10 CSR 10-6.120 does not make a distinction
between total lead production and total refined lead production.
Comment 6: In paragraph three of section V.A.1., EPA states that
``Spent batteries are stored in a battery bunker until processed in a
shredder.'' Doe Run requests that the statement read: ``Spent batteries
are stored in the containerized storage area until processed in the
battery shredder.''
Response 6: Please see Response 3.
Comment 7: In section V.A.1., EPA states that ``The batteries
further undergo a separation process under which the lead and metal
parts are separated from the plastic and other debris.'' Doe Run
requests that this statement be revised as follows: ``The batteries
further undergo a separation process under which the lead and metal
parts are separated from the plastic and other materials.'' Doe Run
also requests EPA to change ``The plastic and other debris are skimmed
off and sent to recycling facilities'' to ``The plastic is skimmed off
and sent to recycling facilities.''
Response 7: Please see Response 3.
Comment 8: In section V.A.1, the fifth paragraph states that ``The
lead sulfate paste is passed through a filter press and neutralized
with hydrated lime to form calcium sulfate . . .'' Doe Run requests
that this statement be revised to read: ``The lead sulfate paste is
passed through a filter press . . .''
Response 8: Please see Response 3.
Comment 9: Regarding the first paragraph in section V.A.2, Doe Run
disagrees with EPA's statement that the annual lead emissions from the
Casteel Mine and the K & D Crushing Operations are ``significant'' to
the total emissions of 18.34 tons per year. Doe Run further requests a
change in EPA's statement from ``processing of lead containing rock
until it becomes wet concentrate that is shipped to other customers,''
to ``processing of lead containing rock to produce lead concentrate to
be shipped to customers.''
Response 9: The commenter makes two separate comments in its
``Ninth'' comment per the progression of its comment letter. For
consistency in numbering, EPA is also addressing these comments
together.
Regarding Doe Run's comment that the Casteel Mine and the K & D
Crushing Operations are not ``significant'' to the total emissions of
18.34 tons per year, EPA disagrees. In Section 3, Emissions Inventory,
of Missouri's attainment SIP, four facilities, including the Casteel
Mine and K & D Crushing, are listed that reported more than 0.01 tpy
lead for inventory years 2009 through 2011. Missouri has determined
that these facilities are significant and required modeling in order to
determine their impacts at the monitor. This comment does not
substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and
EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this
comment.
As summarized above, Doe Run has commented on the wording of the
third sentence in the first paragraph of section V.A.2. Please see
Response 1.
Comment 10: In the third paragraph of section V.A.2, EPA states
that ``At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore is hauled from the active mining
faces to a central crusher where it is crushed . . .'' Doe Run requests
this sentence to be revised to state, ``At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore
is hauled from the active mining faces to an underground central
crusher where it is crushed . . .''
Additionally, in this same paragraph, EPA states that ``After being
crushed aboveground to less than \5/8\-inch in size, the ore subjected
to wet milling and grinding with rods and ball mills . . .'' Doe Run
has requested the word ``is'' to be inserted between ``ore'' and
``subjected.''
Response 10: Please see Response 1.
Comment 11: In the fourth paragraph of section V.A.2., EPA states
``As stated above, the Herculaneum facility ceased operations smelting
operations in December 2013; thus, the concentrate is shipped overseas
to primary lead smelting operations or other customers.'' Doe Run
requests this sentence be revised to state ``As stated above, the
Herculaneum facility ceased smelting operations in December 2013; thus,
the concentrate is shipped overseas to customers' primary lead smelting
operations or other customers.''
Response 11: Please see Response 1.
Comment 12: Doe Run commented that ``mg/m\3\'' had been incorrectly
used in the proposal instead of ``[micro]g/m\3\'' throughout the
document.
Response 12: EPA checked the Federal Register proposed rule at
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223-
0001 and found that the correct units, [micro]g/m\3\, were used. No
change is necessary.
Comment 13: Section V.D.f. states that ``By February 4, 2013,
install a dry lime SO2 scrubber to further process gases as
they exit the pulse-jet baghouse . . .'' Doe Run comments that this
statement does not accurately reflect the language of the Consent
Decree and it should read ``By February 4, 2013, install a dry lime
SO2 scrubber to further process the exit gas stream before
routing reverberatory furnace process to the main stack.''
Response 13: EPA agrees but notes that the requirement is not in
the Consent Decree but rather is found in paragraph V, item 6.F. of the
2013 Consent Judgment (appendix M of the attainment SIP). As stated in
the proposal, Section V.D. contains a brief discussion of the control
measures. This comment further describes those control measures, but
does not substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment
SIP, and EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on
this comment.
Comment 14: Doe Run comments that section V.D.i. references item
a.; however, it should reference item b.
Response 14: EPA agrees. EPA notes that Section 5.1, Consent
Judgment Measures, of Missouri's attainment SIP also references item A.
However, as depicted in the process flow diagram on page A-7 in
Appendix A of Missouri's attainment SIP, for the reverberatory furnace,
EPA notes that Doe Run is correct; the Dry Scrubber Baghouse CD37
follows the exit gases from the reverberatory furnace and is not part
of the South Refinery described in item a. (depicted on page A-9 of
Missouri's attainment SIP). This comment does not substantively impact
the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore not
changing its proposed action based on this comment.
Comment 15: Section V.D.j. states that ``By October 31, 2014,
install ``batwing'' style ventilation covers to improve . . .'' Doe Run
requests that this language be revised to state ``By October 31, 2014,
install ``batwing'' style ventilation covers, or covers with equivalent
or better capture efficiency to improve . . .''
Response 15: As stated in the proposal, Section V.D. contains a
brief discussion of the control measures. This comment further
describes those control measures, but does not substantively
[[Page 52193]]
impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore
not changing its proposed action based on this comment.
Comment 16: The fourth paragraph of section V. E. refers to the
``mines and mills.'' The statement should be revised to refer
specifically to the ``Buick Mine and Mill and the Casteel Mine.''
Response 16: Please see Response 1.
Comment 17: In section V.H.a., EPA states that the negative
pressure requirement is in ``inches Hg.'' Doe Run comments that the
correct units are ``mm Hg.''
Response 17: Please see Response 1.
Comment 18: Doe Run requests EPA to refer in the first paragraph of
section VI.B.to the limits of Missouri regulation 10-6.120 as ``175,000
tons of refined lead per year.'' Also, Doe Run comments that in section
VI.B. the proposal should consistently refer to ``lead'' rather than
``Pb.''
Response 18: With regard to 10 CSR 10-6.120, please see Response 5.
With regard to the use the words ``lead'' and ``Pb,'' interchangeably,
please see Response 1.
Comment 19: In the third paragraph of section VI.B., EPA states
that ``The modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP
are 176,482 tons of Pb produced per year.'' Doe Run requests that this
sentence be revised to state ``The modeled total emissions in the
attainment demonstration SIP are based on 176,482 tons of refined lead
produced per year.''
Response 19: EPA agrees that the sentence should indicate that the
``modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP are based
on 176,482 tons of lead produced per year. As discussed above in
Responses 5 and 18, the language ``refined'' is not found in the
Missouri regulation.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP to approve
Missouri's SIP for the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead NAAQS nonattainment
area near Boss, Missouri. The applicable standard addressed in this
action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008 (73 FR 66964). EPA
is also granting final approval to portions of a revision to the State
of Missouri CSR 10-6.120, ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead from
Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations''.
Incorporation by Reference
In this action, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Missouri
Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 (with the exclusions of Paragraph 10-6.120
(3)(B)1. and Table 1, and the 0.00087 gr/dscf main stack emissions
limit for BRRF) described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also
is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this proposed rule
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not
affect the finality of this rulemaking for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
[[Page 52194]]
postpone the effectiveness of such future rule or action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 18, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA--Missouri
0
2. In Sec. 52. 1320 amend the table in paragraph (c) by revising the
entry for Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 and the table in paragraph (d)
by adding entry (29) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective
Missouri citation Title date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
10-6.120....................... Restriction of 3/30/09 8/28/15 and Paragraph (3)(B)1 and
Emissions of Lead [Insert Federal Table, Provision
from Specific Register Pertaining to
Lead Smelter- citation]. Limitations of Lead
Refinery Emissions from
Installations. Specific
Installations, have
not been approved as
a part of the SIP.
The requirement to
limit main stack lead
emissions at BRRF to
0.00087 gr/dscf lead
in Paragraph (3)(B)2
has not been approved
as a part of the SIP.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Order/permit number effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(29) Doe Run Buick Resource Consent Judgment 7/29/13 8/28/15 [Insert ...................
Recycling Facility. 13IR-CC00016. Federal Register
citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-21199 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
