[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27457-27459]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11175]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69525; File No. SR-BX-2013-033]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BX Rule 4756 and Rule 4763 To
Stipulate How Participants in the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market May
Modify Previously Entered Orders and To Describe How Modified Orders
Are Processed

May 6, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 25, 2013, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rule 4756 (Entry and Display of
Quotes and Orders) and Rule 4763 (Short Sale Price Test Pursuant to
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO) to stipulate how Participants in the NASDAQ
OMX BX Equities Market may modify previously entered orders and to
describe how modified orders are processed.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new
language is italicized.
* * * * *

4756. Entry and Display of Quotes and Orders

    (a) Entry of Orders--Participants can enter orders into the System,
subject to the following requirements and conditions:
    (1)-(2) No change.
    (3) Orders can be entered into the System (or previously entered
orders cancelled or modified) from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Eastern
Time. Participants may modify a previously entered order without
cancelling it or affecting the priority of the order on the book solely
for the purpose of modifying the marking of a sell order as long,
short, or short exempt; provided, however, that if an order is
redesignated as short, a Short Sale Period is in effect under Rule
4763, and the order is not priced at a Permitted Price or higher under
Rule 4763(d), the order will be cancelled. In addition, a partial
cancellation of an order to reduce its share size will not affect the
priority of the order on the book. All other modifications of orders
will result in the replacement of the original order with a new order
with a new time stamp.
    (b)-(c) No change.
* * * * *

4763. Short Sale Price Test Pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO

    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) Re-pricing of Orders during Short Sale Period. Except as
provided below, [D]during the Short Sale Period, short sale orders that
are limited to the national best bid or lower and short sale market
orders will be re-priced by the System one minimum allowable price
increment above the current national best bid (``Permitted Price''). To
reflect declines in the national best bid, the Exchange will continue
to re-price a short sale order at the lowest Permitted Price down to
the order's original limit price, or if a market order, until the order
is filled. Non-displayed orders between the BX bid and offer will also
be re-priced upward to a Permitted Price to correspond with a rise in
the national best bid.
    (1) No change.
    (2) During the Short Sale Period, if an order was entered as a long
sale order or a short sale exempt order but is subsequently marked
pursuant to Rule 4756(a)(3) as a short sale order, the System will
cancel the order unless it is priced at a Permitted Price or higher.
    (e)-(f) No change.
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to stipulate how
Participants in the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market may modify previously
entered orders and to describe how modified orders are processed.
Currently, Rule 4756 permits previously entered orders to be cancelled,
a fact that has been interpreted by BX to allow a Participant to cancel
an order in full or in part. However, new language is being added to
the rule to make it clear that a partial cancellation of an order
(i.e., a reduction in the share size of the order) does not cause the
order to lose priority on the BX book. BX believes that it is
reasonable to allow the partial cancellation of an order without the
order losing priority because the Participant that entered the order
continues to express its willingness to trade at the price entered when
the order first came onto the book. Moreover, if the order is
displayed, other Participants quoting at the same price are aware of
the priority of their orders relative to the partially cancelled order.
While a partial cancellation may provide these other Participants with
greater opportunities to provide a fill, BX does not believe that it
would be reasonable for the Participants to jump ahead of an order with
time priority merely because the size of the order has been reduced.
Similarly, if the partially cancelled order is non-displayed, other
Participants would have no awareness of its price, its original size,
or its reduced size. Again, while other Participants at that price may
have an increased opportunity to provide a fill when the order's size
is reduced, they would not have an expectation that the priority of
their orders would change vis-[agrave]-vis that of an order that
arrived on the book at an earlier time. Finally, with respect to
Participants seeking to access liquidity, the reduced size of the order
would be disseminated (if a displayed order) or not disseminated (if a
non-displayed order) via market data feeds, but these Participants
would be indifferent as to the order's priority vis-[agrave]-vis other
orders with the same price.
    In addition, BX is modifying Rule 4756 to provide that a sell order
may be modified in order to change its marking as long, short, or short
exempt without affecting its priority on the book.\3\ Participants
sometimes wish to modify the marking of a sell order on the book due to
changes in the Participant's holdings of the security in question. At
present, such a modification may only be achieved by the cancellation
of the existing order and its replacement with a new order with a
different time stamp. BX believes that it is reasonable to allow the
modification of an order for this purpose without affecting its
priority, since the order's marking has no bearing on the timing of its
entry onto the book vis-[agrave]-vis other orders at the same price.\4\
In the event, however, that a long or short exempt order is
redesignated as a short sale order and the security that is the subject
of the order is in a Short Sale Period, as provided for in Rule 4763
and Rule 201 under Regulation SHO,\5\ the order will be evaluated to
determine whether its price would be a Permitted Price within the
meaning of Rule 4763(d). If not, the order will be cancelled rather
than repriced.\6\ BX believes that cancelling the order under these
circumstances is preferable to repricing it, because it alerts the
Participant entering the order to the existence of the Short Sale
Period and forces the Participant to evaluate its intentions with
regard to the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The proposed rule does not affect Participants' obligations
contained in Regulation SHO under the Act, and Participants must
continue to comply with such obligations, including the order
marking and locate requirements. See 17 CFR 242.200 et seq.
    \4\ A change to the marking of the order would be effected
through the submission of a ``modify order'' message.
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.201.
    \6\ If an order originally marked as long or short is marked as
short exempt, the order will not be cancelled or repriced. Rule
4763(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, BX is amending Rule 4756 to make it clear that all other
modifications of previously submitted orders, including increases in
size \7\ and changes in price, will result in the cancellation of the
original order and its replacement with a new order with a new time
stamp. Although the addition of this rule language does not reflect a
change in the way the BX system currently operates, BX believes that
the clarity of the rule will be enhanced by including the new language.
BX further believes that the functionality described by the rule
language is important to ensuring that Participants cannot use an
existing order unfairly to retain priority with respect to a materially
different order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ BX reminds Participants that if a seller increases the size
of a pending sell order, the resulting modified order is considered
a new order and must be marked by the broker-dealer to reflect the
seller's net position at the time of order modification pursuant to
Rule 200 of Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of
the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
Specifically, BX believes that permitting Participants to change the
marking of sell orders without affecting their priority on the BX book
will eliminate an aspect of the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market that had
unnecessarily made it more difficult for posted sell orders to execute.
Thus, the change will enhance the fairness and efficiency of the BX
market without affecting the ability of Participants to comply with
applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, the changes to the
rule that describe the effect of a partial order cancellation promote
the clarity of the rule with respect to the ability of a Participant to
reduce the size of an existing order without affecting its priority. BX
further believes that allowing an order to retain priority under these
conditions is consistent with the operation of a free and open market
and the protection of investors and the public interest, since the
Participant that entered an order that is partially cancelled has
nevertheless expressed a continued willingness to trade at a specified
price, and therefore should retain priority over Participants that
joined that price at a later time. Finally, BX believes that the
proposed addition of language to clearly stipulate that all other order
modifications will result in the cancellation and replacement of the
original order with a new order with new time priority is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because the
new language will make clear an existing feature of the market that BX
believes is important to ensuring that Participants cannot use an
existing order unfairly to retain priority

with respect to a materially different order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, BX
believes that the change with respect to allowing Participants to
modify the long, short, or short exempt marking of a sell order without
affecting its priority will assist BX in competing with the BATS
Exchange and the BATS Y-Exchange, which already allow their
Participants to do so. BX further believes that the other changes will
not have any effect on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\11\ At any time within 60
days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the
public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii)
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2013-033 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2013-033. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2013-033 and
should be submitted on or before May 31, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11175 Filed 5-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 39 (Monday, February 29, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10182-10188]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04083]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Doolan, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Missouri 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been
met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Background
V. Technical Review of the Compliance Plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS
    A. Facility Description
    B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input
Data
    C. Control Strategy
    D. Modeling Results
    E. Attainment Demonstration
    F. Contingency Measures
    G. Enforceability
VI. Proposed Action

I. What is being addressed in this document?

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

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

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

III. What action is EPA taking?

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

IV. Background

    EPA established the NAAQS for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR
46246). On October 15, 2008, EPA established a new lead NAAQS of 0.15
ug/m\3\ in air, measured as a rolling three-month average. (73 FR
66964).
    The state historically conducted ambient air monitoring for lead at
the Exide Canon Hollow facility (formerly known as Schuylkill Metals)
under the 1978 lead NAAQS from 1990 to 2000. Ambient air monitoring
data from this time period indicated that the facility violated the
1978 standard one calendar quarter in 1994.
    When the 2008 lead NAAQS was promulgated, the rulemaking required
states to conduct ambient air monitoring near facilities that reported
lead emissions of 1.0 tons per year (tpy) or greater. On December 27,
2010, EPA promulgated the Revisions to Lead Ambient Air Monitoring
Requirements

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

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

A. Facility Description

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

B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data

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

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

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

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

C. Control Strategy

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

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

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

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

D. Modeling Results

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

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

E. Attainment Demonstration

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

    \3\ ``Guide to Developing Reasonably Achievable Control Measures
for Controlling Lead Emissions,'' (EPA-457/R-12-001), March 2012,
http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/pdfs/2012ImplementationGuide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

F. Contingency Measures

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

G. Enforceability

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

VI. Proposed Action

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

Incorporation by Reference

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

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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

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. Amend Sec.  52.1320 by:
0
a. Adding entry (31) at the end of the table in paragraph(d); and
0
b. Adding entry (70) at the end of the table in paragraph (e).
    The additions to read as follows:
* * * * *

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of Plan.

    (d)* * *

                            EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    State
        Name of source         Order/Permit No.   effective     EPA Approval              Explanation
                                                     date           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(31) Exide Technologies Canon  Consent Judgment     10/10/14  2/29/16 and      .................................
 Hollow, MO.                    14H0-CC00064.                  [Insert
                                                               Federal
                                                               Register
                                                               citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable
  Name of nonregulatory SIP      geographic or      State       EPA Approval
          provision              nonattainment    submittal         date                  Explanation
                                     area            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(70) Exide Technologies        Forest City.....     10/15/14  2/29/16 and      [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0835; FRL 9942-
 Compliance Plan 2008 lead                                     [Insert          77-Region 7.
 NAAQS.                                                        Federal
                                                               Register
                                                               citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-04083 Filed 2-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 63851]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22583]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1356]

Recommended Gulfstream GV-Series Standardized Curricula for
Operators Delivered by Training Centers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee's (ARAC) recommended Gulfstream GV-series
aircraft standardized curricula for certain air carriers and operators.
The FAA invites public comment on the recommended curricula.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on these documents by November 9,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2022-
1356 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Tarkington, Flight Standards,
Air Transportation Division, Training and Simulation Group (AFS-280),
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>. Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Standardized Curriculum concept is a
voluntary approach to training for title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 135 training when provided by part 142 training centers.
It provides an efficient means for approving training curricula offered
by part 142 training centers while increasing the consistency of
training, testing, and checking delivered to part 135 operators with an
emphasis on standardization. The Standardized Curriculum concept
supports the overarching goals to enhance training and checking and
promote safer operational practices and is consistent with applicable
regulations. Additional information about standardized curricula is
available in Advisory Circular (AC) 142-1, Standardized Curricula
Delivered by Part 142 Training Centers.

Discussion

    The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) in
March 2020 with providing advice and recommendations on the most
effective ways to achieve standardization (where appropriate) and
significant administrative efficiency in check pilot qualification,
flight instructor qualification, and part 135 air carrier training
curricula delivered by part 142 training centers, known as the
Standardized Curriculum concept. Under ARAC, the Standardized
Curriculum concept was tasked to the Training Standardization Working
Group (TSWG). TSWG membership includes representatives from training
centers, aircraft manufacturers, operators, and aviation industry
organizations. The TSWG was tasked to develop and recommend part 135
standardized curricula for each aircraft or series of aircraft, which
includes the maneuvers, procedures, and functions to be performed
during training and checking.
    The TSWG developed a GV-series standardized curricula, which
includes recommended GV maneuvers, procedures, and functions to meet
the regulatory requirements in part 135. The TSWG submitted the
recommended curricula to the ARAC for consideration. The ARAC
subsequently approved the curricula and submitted it to FAA for review.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites public comments on the TSWG proposed ``Standardized
Curricula Part 135 Delivered by Part 142 Training Centers, Gulfstream
GV-Series.'' This document can be found at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/20220912%20ARAC%20Recommendation%20Report%20-%20TSWG%20GV%20-%20vSent.pdf and supporting documentation can be found at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/TSWGG-VSupportingDocumentation.pdf.
    The FAA will consider the public comments submitted during this
comment period in finalizing the curricula.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 13, 2022.
David Boulter,
Acting Associate Administrator, Aviation Safety.
[FR Doc. 2022-22583 Filed 10-18-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P