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. 

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. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

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. 

10. Protection of Children 

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. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

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. 

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 

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. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 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: 

§ 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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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/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. 

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, 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 


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 

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 

in the proposal instead of ‘‘mg/m3’’ 

throughout the document. 

Response 12: EPA checked the 

Federal Register proposed rule at 

http://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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 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 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective 

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 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 7/29/13 8/28/15 [Insert Federal Register 

citation] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–21199 Filed 8–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R05–RCRA–2014–0689; FRL–9933– 

29—Region 5] 

Michigan: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES