Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 2263 

OCS block area means the names 

given by the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement (BOE) to define the OCS 

areas used to facilitate management or 

leasing on the OCS. 

§ 146.405 Safety and Security notice of 

arrival for vessels arriving at a place on the 

OCS. 

(a) General. The owner or operator of 

each vessel subject to this section must 

submit an initial NOA to the National 

Vessel Movement Center (NVMC): 

(1) If the voyage time is more than 96 

hours, at least 96 hours before the vessel 

arrives at a place on the OCS from a 

foreign port or place or from a different 

OCS block area to engage in OCS 

activities; 

(2) If the voyage time is less than 96 

hours and more than 24 hours, before 

departure, or; 

(3) If the voyage time is less than 24 

hours, at least 24 hours before the vessel 

arrives at a place on the OCS. 

(b) Information required in an NOA. 

The following information is required 

from the owners or operators of vessels 

submitting an NOA: 

(1) All the information specified in 33 

CFR Table 160.206 with the exception 

of information required in items (2)(iii) 

through (2)(vi) and item (6). Item (8) is 

also not required except as pursuant to 

the laws on vessel entry (19 U.S.C. 

1434) and clearance (46 U.S.C. 60105). 

Vessel owners and operators should 

protect any personal information they 

gather in preparing notices for 

transmittal to the NVMC so as to 

prevent unauthorized disclosure of that 

information; 

(2) The area in which they are 

conducting their operations. This area 

can be submitted as either the name of 

the places, the BOE block numbers, or 

the latitudes and longitudes of the 

places on the OCS where operations are 

being conducted; and 

(3) If any person onboard, including a 

crewmember, is not required to carry a 

passport for travel, then passport 

information required in Table 160.206, 

items (4)(iv) through (vi), and (5)(iv) 

through (vi), need not be provided for 

that person. 

(c) Updates to a submitted NOA. 

Unless otherwise specified in this 

section, whenever the most recently 

submitted NOA information becomes 

inaccurate, the owner or operator of that 

vessel must revise and re-submit the 

NOA within the times required in 

paragraph (e) of this section. An owner 

or operator does not need to revise and 

re-submit an NOA for the following: 

(1) A change in submitted arrival time 

that is less than 6 hours; 

(2) Changes in the location, latitude 

and longitude, of the vessel from the 

location at the time the NOA was 

reported; or 

(3) Changes to personnel positions or 

duties on the vessel. 

(d) Methods of submission. The notice 

must be submitted to the NVMC by 

electronic Notice of Arrival and 

Departure format using methods 

specified at the NVMC’s Web site at 

http://www.nvmc.uscg.gov/. 

(e) Required reporting time of an NOA 

update. The owner or operator of each 

vessel subject to this section must 

submit an NOA update: 

(1) If the most recently submitted 

NOA, or NOA update, differs by 24 

hours or more from the current 

estimated time of arrival, the owner or 

operator of the vessel must provide an 

update as soon as practicable but at least 

24 hours before the vessel arrives at the 

OCS location where the owner or 

operator plans to perform OCS 

activities; 

(2) If the most recently submitted 

NOA, or NOA update, differs by less 

than 24 hours from the current 

estimated time of arrival, the owner or 

operator of the vessel must provide an 

update as soon as practicable but at least 

12 hours before the vessel arrives at the 

OCS location where the owner or 

operator plans to perform OCS 

activities; or 

(3) If the remaining voyage time is less 

than 24 hours, the owner or operator of 

the vessel must provide an update as 

soon as practicable, but at least 12 hours 

before the vessel arrives at a place on 

the OCS. 

(f) Towing vessels. When a towing 

vessel controls a vessel required to 

submit an NOA under this subpart, the 

owner or operator of the towing vessel, 

or lead towing vessel if there is more 

than one, is responsible for submitting 

only one NOA containing the 

information required for the towing 

vessels and the vessel under its control. 

(g) This section does not apply to 

vessels merely transiting the waters 

superjacent to the OCS and not engaged 

in OCS activities. 

Dated: December 22, 2010. 

Robert J. Papp, Jr., 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant. 

[FR Doc. 2011–569 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0675; FRL–9250–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota; Gopher Resource, LLC 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request 

submitted by the Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency (MPCA) on July 29, 

2010, to revise the Minnesota State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead (Pb) 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 

State has submitted a joint Title I/Title 

V document (joint document) in the 

form of Air Emission Permit No. 

03700016–003, and has requested that 

the conditions laid out with the citation 

‘‘Title I Condition: SIP for Lead NAAQS’’ 

replace an existing Administrative 

Order (Order) as the enforceable SIP 

conditions for Gopher Resource, LLC. 

The existing Order was approved by 

EPA on October 18, 1994. MPCA’s July 

29, 2010, revisions were meant to satisfy 

the maintenance requirements for the 

1978 Pb National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), promulgated at 1.5 

micrograms per cubic meter, or 1.5 

μg/m3. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective March 14, 2011, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by February 

14, 2011. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0675, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: John Mooney, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John Mooney, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
2264 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010– 

0675. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

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 docket 

are listed in the http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Andy 

Chang, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–0258 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258, 

chang.andy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

A. When and why did the State make this 

submittal? 

B. Did the State hold public hearings for 

this submittal? 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of MPCA’s 

submittal? 

A. Gopher Resource, LLC, and General SIP 

Conditions 

B. Emissions Units, Processes, and Limits 

C. Stack Emissions Testing 

D. Consistency With the Existing Order 

E. Rescission of the Order. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. When and why did the State make 

this submittal? 

MPCA submitted this revision to the 

Minnesota SIP on July 29, 2010. Air 

Emission Permit No. 03700016–003 was 

submitted as a joint document, and 

MPCA requested that the conditions 

labeled ‘‘Title I Condition: SIP for Lead 

NAAQS’’ serve as the enforceable SIP 

conditions for the Gopher Resource, 

LLC, (Gopher) facility. The State’s 

submittal, as well as EPA’s analysis of 

the submittal elements, will be 

discussed in subsequent sections of this 

document. 

Portions of Dakota County were 

designated as nonattainment for the 

1978 Pb NAAQS on January 6, 1992. It 

was found that Gopher was the primary 

source of elevated Pb levels in the area. 

Gopher was formerly known as Gopher 

Smelting and Refining Company, and 

the change to Gopher Resource, LLC 

will be discussed in Section IIA, below. 

EPA approved a request to redesignate 

Dakota County as attainment for the 

1978 Pb NAAQS on October 18, 1994. 

The redesignation request was part of a 

SIP revision which also included a 

maintenance plan in accordance with 

section 175A of the CAA, as interpreted 

by a September 4, 1992, EPA 

memorandum entitled, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment.’’ EPA also 

approved the Order for Gopher on 

October 18, 1994. This Order was 

originally issued by MPCA for the 

facility on June 22, 1993, and contained 

emissions limits and other requirements 

ensuring attainment of the 1978 Pb 

NAAQS. 

Section 175A(b) of the CAA required 

MPCA to submit an update to its 

maintenance plan, which the agency did 

on November 18, 2002. On this date, the 

State also submitted a request to replace 

the existing Order with a joint 

document, in this case, a permit. This 

concept does not set any new precedent, 

because Minnesota routinely houses the 

conditions necessary to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS in facility permits. 

The required SIP conditions are denoted 

as, ‘‘Title I Condition: SIP for (pollutant) 

NAAQS.’’ However, EPA did not act on 

the submittal because, among other 

things, the revisions to the SIP for 

Gopher removed contingency measures 

from the maintenance plan. 

On November 19, 2007, MPCA 

formally withdrew the request to 

replace the Order with the joint 

document, but asked that EPA consider 

the maintenance plan update, which 

EPA approved on June 3, 2008 (73 FR 

31614). On November 16, 2010, the 

Administrator of EPA signed 

designations for Pb nonattainment areas 

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, for those areas 

exceeding 0.15 μg/m3. A subsequent 

Federal Register notice published on 

November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), 

confirmed that portions of Eagan, 

located in Dakota County, and identical 

to the current maintenance area for the 

1978 Pb NAAQS, are in nonattainment 

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. However, the 

1978 Pb NAAQS remains in effect for 

the Eagan area until December 31, 2011. 

MPCA’s July 29, 2010, requested 

revisions are meant to address only the 

maintenance requirements of the 1978 

Pb NAAQS. 

MPCA has worked closely with EPA 

to form a joint document that meets all 

the requirements to replace the existing 

Order as the enforceable SIP conditions 

for the Gopher facility. As previously 

mentioned, Minnesota houses all 

conditions necessary to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS in facility permits 

through a joint document. The 

conditions of this joint document are 

established under Minnesota’s Clean Air 

Act Title I authority and Title V 

permitting authority. The State’s July 

29, 2010, submittal from MPCA is the 

Title V permit for Gopher Resource, 

LLC, with appropriately denoted Title I 

SIP conditions. This joint document 

will replace the existing Order, and 

although this SIP revision has been 

submitted in conjunction with 

reissuance of the facility’s operating 

permit, this action will focus only on 

the relevant changes to the facility’s 

Title I SIP conditions for Pb. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 2265 

B. Did the State hold public hearings for 

this submittal? 

The public notice for the joint 

document and associated SIP revision 

was published in the St. Paul Pioneer 

Press on February 17, 2010. The public 

notice period for the joint document 

began on February 18, 2010, and lasted 

until March 19, 2010. MPCA did not 

receive a request to hold a public 

hearing, but did receive comments on 

the reissuance of the Title V permit. 

However, none of the comments that 

MPCA received were applicable to the 

maintenance requirements for the 1978 

Pb NAAQS, and no changes to the joint 

document were made as a result of the 

comments. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of MPCA’s 

submittal? 

A. Gopher Resource, LLC, and General 

SIP Conditions 

The existing Order refers to the 

facility as ‘‘Gopher Smelting and 

Refining Company,’’ whereas the joint 

document submitted by MPCA on July 

29, 2010, correctly identifies the facility 

as ‘‘Gopher Resource, LLC.’’ This change 

reflects only a change of ownership 

structure, whereas the actual ownership 

remained largely unchanged. General 

SIP conditions, such as those that 

describe when facility changes require a 

SIP revision, have been reworded or 

clarified to fit with MPCA’s current 

format for such conditions. Additional 

conditions that allowed the facility a 

choice in compliance options in the 

Order have been updated to reflect the 

compliance choice made by Gopher. 

Lastly, the joint document organizes and 

names emissions units differently than 

the Order, thereby reflecting current 

operations. Aligning the current name of 

the facility into the SIP prevents 

potential confusion as to the correct 

name of the facility, and the enforceable 

conditions in the joint document now 

apply to the same properly designated 

entity on both the State and Federal 

levels. Therefore, EPA finds the updated 

name of Gopher Resource, LLC, to be 

approvable. The changes to the general 

SIP conditions as outlined in the joint 

document pertain to format only; these 

changes ensure that MPCA has been 

consistent with other joint documents, 

and because there are no significant 

emissions changes that stem from 

formatting, rewording, or clarifications, 

EPA finds these revisions to be 

approvable. Gopher has selected a set of 

compliance options based on EPA 

regulations and guidelines, or based on 

the previously approved Order, and 

therefore, EPA finds these changes to be 

approvable. Organizing emissions units 

to reflect current operations aligns State 

and Federal nomenclature; therefore, 

EPA finds these changes to be 

approvable. 

B. Emissions Units, Processes, and 

Limits 

The State-submitted joint document 

contains updated emissions units and 

processes that reflect current operations. 

Flue dust agglomeration is no longer a 

process at Gopher, nor does there exist 

a central vacuum system. The existing 

Order refers to six refining kettles 

instead of the ten that are currently in 

operation; these ten kettles are reflected 

in the joint document. These kettles 

vent to the main stack SV003, and 

although there has been a change in the 

specifics of the emissions units, the 

emissions limits for SV003 in the joint 

document are identical to those found 

in the Order. Therefore, EPA does not 

expect a net effect on the emissions 

exiting at SV003, nor does EPA expect 

a violation of the 1978 Pb NAAQS to 

occur as a result of these added units. 

Gopher has added two additional 

Torit dust collectors that collect fugitive 

Pb emissions from raw material 

handling, the battery breaking dock, 

material transfer rooms, and the furnace 

areas. These dust collectors exhaust into 

the new Torit stack SV008, and the 

purpose of these collectors is to control 

dust that was observed to ‘‘leak’’ from 

various points, i.e., it was assumed that 

the dust at these new collectors was 

going into Torit stack SV002. Emissions 

that were assumed to be entering the 

SV002 in their entirety are now being 

split between SV002 and SV008. 

MPCA performed a modeling analysis 

showing that the added Torit stack 

SV008 would not result in negative 

ambient impacts. The modeling shows 

that the area of maximum impact, on a 

monthly average level, is 0.78 μg/m3. 

Monitoring data from Air Quality 

System ID# 270370465 has corroborated 

compliance with the 1978 Pb NAAQS; 

the highest quarterly average recorded 

between 2007 and 2009 (consistent with 

the form of the 1978 Pb NAAQS) was 

0.70 μg/m3. Available data from 2010 

have demonstrated compliance with the 

1978 Pb NAAQS as well. Based on the 

static emission limits, as well as 

supporting modeling and monitoring 

data, EPA finds the requested revisions 

concerning emissions units, processes, 

and limits to be approvable. 

C. Stack Emissions Testing 

MPCA requested in the joint 

document that the stack testing 

frequency be changed from once every 

year to once every two years. The basis 

of the request is found in the 

Amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) From Secondary Lead 

Smelting (62 FR 32209). The 

amendments affirm that if a compliance 

test shows a source emitted Pb 

compounds at 1.0 milligram of lead per 

dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 

grains of lead per dry standard cubic 

foot) or less during the time of the 

compliance test, the owner or operator 

of the lead smelter would be allowed up 

to 24 calendar months from the previous 

compliance test to conduct the next 

annual compliance test for Pb 

compounds. MPCA submitted emissions 

test reports from 2006 and 2008; the 

highest average concentration was 

recorded in 2006 at the main stack, and 

the concentration was .16 milligrams of 

lead per dry standard cubic meter. This 

value is 16% of the bi-annual stack 

testing frequency threshold. The facility 

has been complying with the NESHAP 

for secondary lead smelters since 

December 23, 1997, and to the extent 

that the NESHAP requirements are more 

stringent than the requirements 

contained in the SIP, EPA approves 

Gopher’s request for bi-annual stack 

testing. 

D. Consistency With the Existing Order 

EPA did not act on MPCA’s November 

18, 2002, joint document because 

provisions in that document would 

remove contingency plan elements from 

the maintenance plan. In its July 29, 

2010, submittal, MPCA included 

contingency plans and associated record 

keeping requirements identical to those 

found in the Order. EPA finds the 

inclusion of contingency measures in 

the joint document to be appropriate 

and necessary in conjunction with 

section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

Significant changes have been 

discussed in detail already, and EPA has 

determined that any other minor 

deviations from the existing Order are 

de minimis. For example, MPCA 

requested that mobile equipment traffic 

be allowed on non-paved areas for 

maintenance and inspection purposes. 

These activities are not expected to have 

a negative impact on the surrounding 

ambient air quality. 

EPA finds that all elements included 

in the existing Order are included in the 

July 29, 2010, joint document. Adopting 

the joint document in lieu of the Order 

should not result in any applicability, 

emissions, or otherwise detrimental 

gaps. EPA also expects the Eagan area of 

Dakota County to continue to meet the 

1978 Pb NAAQS. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
2266 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

E. Rescission of the Order 

On July 27, 2010, MPCA revoked the 

Order and subsequent amendments to 

the Order. For the reasons discussed in 

previous sections, the joint document 

submitted by MPCA on July 29, 2010, is 

appropriate and sufficient to serve as 

the only document that contains SIP 

conditions for Gopher Resource, LLC. 

As such, EPA finds it appropriate to 

rescind the original Order from the SIP. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving a joint Title I/Title 

V document submitted by MPCA for 

Gopher Resource, LLC. The conditions 

labeled, ‘‘Title I Condition: SIP for Lead’’ 

will replace the existing Order as the 

enforceable SIP conditions for the 

facility. Specifically, these conditions 

can be found in Air Emission Permit No. 

03700016–003. The joint document 

includes elements necessary for Dakota 

County to continue meeting the 1978 Pb 

NAAQS. EPA is simultaneously 

rescinding the existing Order from the 

SIP. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the Proposed Rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

State plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective March 14, 2011 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by February 

14, 2011. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period; 

therefore, any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

March 14, 2011. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive 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 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the 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. 

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 action 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 March 14, 2011. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Lead, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 29, 2010. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart Y—Minnesota 

■ 2. In § 52.1220 the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by removing the entry 

for ‘‘Gopher Smelting and Refining 

Company’’ and adding an entry for 

‘‘Gopher Resource, LLC’’ in its place to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 2267 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS

Name of source Permit No. State effective 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Gopher Resource, LLC ................ 03700016–003 06/29/10 01/13/11, [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Only conditions cited as ‘‘Title I 

condition: SIP for Lead 

NAAQS.’’ 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–337 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES