[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53038-53039]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21011]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0534; FRL-9900-36-Region 9]

Interim Final Determination to Stay and Defer Sanctions;
California; San Joaquin Valley

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim final determination to stay the
imposition of offset sanctions and to defer the imposition of highway
sanctions based on a proposed approval of revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley portion of the California State Implementation Plan published
elsewhere in this Federal Register. The revisions concern the Clean Air
Act nonattainment area contingency measure requirement for the 1997
annual and 24-hour national ambient air quality standards for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) in the San Joaquin Valley.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on August 28,
2013. However, comments will be accepted until September 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0534, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Frances Wicher (AIR-2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, EPA Region 9, (415)
972-3957<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

I. Background

    On November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69896), we published a partial approval
and partial disapproval of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District's (SJVUAPCD or District) 2008 PM2.5 Plan
and the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) 2007 State Strategy
(collectively the ``SJV PM2.5 SIP''). As part of this
action, EPA disapproved the contingency measure provisions in the SJV
PM2.5 SIP as failing to meet the requirements of Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012, which require that the
SIP for each PM2.5 nonattainment area contain contingency
measures to be implemented if the area fails to make reasonable further
progress or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. See
76 FR 41338, 41357 to 41559 (July 13, 2011) and 76 FR 69896, 69924
(November 9, 2011). This disapproval action became effective on January
9, 2012 and started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset
sanctions 18 months after January 9, 2012 and highway sanctions 6
months later, pursuant to CAA section 179 and our regulations at 40 CFR
52.31. As such, offset sanctions applied on July 9, 2013 and will
continue to apply, and highway sanctions will apply on January 9, 2014,
unless EPA determines that the deficiency forming the basis of the
disapproval has been corrected.
    On July 3, 2013, the State of California submitted as a SIP
revision the SJVUAPCD's ``Quantifying Contingencies for the 2008 PM2.5
Plan'' (dated June 20, 2013) (``Contingency Measure SIP''). In the
Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, we are proposing to
approve this SIP revision because we believe that it corrects the
deficiency identified in our November 9, 2011 partial disapproval
action. Based on today's proposed approval, we are taking this final
rulemaking action, effective on publication, to stay the imposition of
the offset sanctions and to defer the imposition of the highway
sanctions triggered by our November 9, 2011 partial disapproval.
    EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this
stay and deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change
our assessment described in this final determination and the proposed
full approval of the Contingency Measure SIP, we intend to take
subsequent final action to re-impose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR
52.31(d). If no comments are submitted that change our assessment, then
all sanctions and sanction clocks will be permanently terminated on the
effective date of a final rule approval.

II. EPA Action

    We are making an interim final determination to stay the imposition
of the offset sanctions and to defer the imposition of the highway
sanctions associated with our partial disapproval of the SJV
PM2.5 SIP, based on our concurrent proposal to approve the
State's SIP revision as correcting the deficiency that initiated these
sanctions.
    Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has
corrected the deficiency identified in EPA's partial disapproval
action, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as
possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for
comment before this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However,
by this action EPA is providing the public with a chance to comment on
EPA's determination after the effective date, and EPA will consider any
comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.
    EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and, through
its proposed

action, is indicating that it is more likely than not that the State
has corrected the deficiency that started the sanctions clocks.
Therefore, it is not in the public interest to initially impose
sanctions or to keep applied sanctions in place when the State has most
likely done all it can to correct the deficiency that triggered the
sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would be impracticable to go through
notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State has corrected
the deficiency prior to the rulemaking approving the State's submittal.
Therefore, EPA believes that it is necessary to use the interim final
rulemaking process to stay and defer sanctions while EPA completes its
rulemaking process on the approvability of the State's submittal.
Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this action, EPA is
invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of
the APA because the purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction
(5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action stays and defers federal sanctions and imposes no
additional requirements.
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action.
    The Administrator certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
    This rule 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).
    This rule does not have tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action does not have federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply to
this rule because it imposes no standards.
    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
    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 to Congress and the Comptroller
General. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which the
issuing agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure
thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the
rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). EPA has made such a good cause
finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective
date of August 28, 2013. EPA will submit a report containing this rule
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 28, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
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, Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 15, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2013-21011 Filed 8-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 76942]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26734]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9029-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 10/24/
2016 Through 10/28/2016
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20160255, Draft, NPS, ND, Knife River Indian Villages National
Historic Site Archeological Resources Management Plan, Comment Period
Ends: 01/03/2017, Contact: James Lange<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20160256, Draft Supplement, USACE, MO, Mississippi River
between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Comment Period
Ends: 12/19/2016, Contact: Kip Runyon<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20160257, Final, Caltrans, CA, State Route 79 Realignment
Project: Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road, Review Period Ends:
12/05/2016, Contact: Aaron P. Burton<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20160258, Final, NRC, FL, Combine Licenses (COLs) for Turkey
Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7, Review Period Ends: 12/05/2016,
Contact: Alicia Williamson Dickerson<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20160259, Draft, USFS, CO, Upper Monument Creek Landscape
Restoration, Comment Period Ends: 12/19/2016, Contact: Carin Vadala
719-636-1602
EIS No. 20160260, Draft, USACE, ND, Mouse River Enhanced Flood
Protection Project, Comment Period Ends: 12/22/2016, Contact: Derek
Ingvalson<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Dated: November 1, 2016.
Karin Leff,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-26734 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 824-825]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00016]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP14-295-000]

Rocky Mountain Natural Gas LLC, SourceGas Distribution LLC;
Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 17, 2013, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(5)
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.207(a)(5)(2013), Rocky Mountain Natural Gas LLC and SourceGas
Distribution LLC submitted a joint petition for a temporary and limited
waiver of the Commission's capacity release regulations and policies,
and certain gas tariff provisions that implement these regulations and
policies, all as more fully described in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must
serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access

who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on January 7, 2014.

    Dated: December 31, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00016 Filed 1-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][NOTICES]


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53660-53662]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21949]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 167 / Monday, August 29, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0078]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by
Mr. Michael R. Schramm, to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard on seat belt assemblies, to include a requirement that seat
belts be releasable without unbuckling. We are denying the petition
because the petitioner did not demonstrate a safety need for such a
requirement or show how such a requirement could be implemented without
increasing inadvertent release of seat belts during normal vehicle
operation and certain crash scenarios, resulting in increased risk to
vehicle occupants.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For Non-Legal Issues: Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For Legal Issues: Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Facsimile: (202)
366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt
Assemblies, includes a provision, S4.1(e) Release, that requires a seat
belt assembly to provide a buckle that is readily accessible to the
occupant to permit the easy and rapid removal of that occupant from the
assembly. Furthermore, S4.3(d) Buckle release, requires the following:
    (1) The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall
release when a force of not more than 133 N is applied.
    (2) A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release
force shall have a minimum area of 452 mm\2\ with a minimum linear
dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed
for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the
insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at
least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length
in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other
design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers
to actuate release.
    (3) The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall not
release under a compressive force of 1,779 N applied as prescribed in
paragraph S5.2(d)(3).\1\ The buckle shall be operable and shall meet
the applicable requirement of paragraph S4.4 \2\ after the compressive
force has been removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ S5.2(d)(3) applies the force on a test line that is
coincident with the center line of the belt extended through the
buckle or on any line that extends over the center of the release
mechanism and intersects the extended centerline of the belt at an
angle of 60 degrees. The load shall be applied using a curved
cylindrical bar placed with its longitudinal center line along the
test line and its center directly above the point or the buckle to
which the load will be applied.
    \2\ S4.4 contains the requirements for assembly performance,
including strength tests, elongation requirements, breaking
strength, and fracture resistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petition

    On December 8, 2009, Michael R. Schramm (henceforth referred to as
the petitioner) petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 209, to require
seat belts to be releasable without unbuckling in response to a 5 pound
(lb.) minimum seat belt assembly tension load when a vehicle is not
moving faster than a threshold speed of 5 miles per hour (mph).
Specifically, the petitioner recommended the incorporation of the
following language in FMVSS No. 209, ``Said seat belt assembly shall
release (without ``unlatching'' said buckle release mechanism) in
response to a 5 lb. minimum load when and only when the vehicle in
which said seat belt is installed is not moving at a speed of greater
than 5 mph.'' The petitioner also included a copy of a November 23,
2009 nonprovisional patent application for an ``Adaptive Seatbelt
Apparatus'' for which the petitioner was listed as the inventor. The
petitioner provided a cost estimate of $3.50 per seating position for
such a feature.
    The petitioner cited several arguments in support of requiring seat
belts to be releasable without unbuckling, including reducing the
likelihood of death and injury of entrapped vehicle occupants. The
petitioner cited the possibility of occupants being unable to extricate
themselves from a vehicle due to a broken arm or hand. The petitioner
also identified a case where a child almost got strangled by a seat
belt. The petitioner further suggested there is a demand for such a
feature as evidenced by the availability of seat belt cutting devices.
He also suggested that seat belt use would increase, claiming a current
lack of seat belt use by police officers who have the fear of being
unable to immediately egress an engaged seat belt in emergency
situations.

III. The Automotive Occupant Restraints Council's Comments

    On March 1, 2010, the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC)
submitted a letter to NHTSA declining support of Mr. Schramm's
petition. The AORC provided the following reasons for declining to
support the petition: (1) A stationary vehicle that is struck would
likely experience a seat belt release as soon as the belt is loaded;
(2) merely moving around in the vehicle, while the vehicle is
stationary, could cause the seat belt to release without intent/
awareness of the occupant, which, even if the occupant were aware of
the situation, would likely be annoying; (3) it is not clear how the
proposed tension load was determined as proper; (4) a child restrained
in a seat could unlatch the seat belt during low speed maneuvers by
pulling on it; and (5) in a slow rollover with no or low vehicle speed,
a buckle could release as the vehicle lands on its roof. In summary,
the AORC stated that these hazards far outweigh any potential benefit
for the extremely rare cases cited by the petitioner.

IV. Analysis of Petition

    FMVSS No. 209 already requires the release mechanism to provide a
rapid and easy removal from the seat belt assembly. The petitioner
raised concern about extremely rare instances where crash deformation
could cause the release mechanism to be damaged or become inaccessible.
When such severe crashes occur, emergency medical services personnel
use specialized equipment to extricate occupants. Also, should vehicle
occupants be concerned about such a situation, there are aftermarket
products, such as seat belt webbing cutters, that can be used. The
petitioner also cited the possibility of vehicle occupants being unable
to extricate themselves from their seat belt due to injuries (i.e.,
broken arm/hand) as a reason for requiring seat belts to be releasable
without unbuckling. However, if the occupant was impaired in such a way
that they were unable to unbuckle their seat belt and relied on the
seat belt to release without unbuckling, such injuries may also limit
their ability to exit through the vehicle door or window. The issue
raised by the petition is whether there is a safety need to justify
rulemaking to consider revising the existing standard in the manner
recommended by the petitioner. The following section discusses
technical concerns identified by the agency.

A. Technical Concerns

    The petitioner's main argument for seat belts that release without
unbuckling is that they would reduce the likelihood of death and injury
of entrapped vehicle occupants. However, it is unclear how the
petitioner's request would be implemented to function without
inadvertently releasing the seat belt during certain, more common,
crash scenarios, e.g., a vehicle struck while slowly traveling through
an intersection or a vehicle struck while stopped. The petitioner
argued that it could be possible to require seat belts to not release
as petitioned if the vehicle is traveling below the specified speed
threshold and it detects an imminent oncoming crash. However, to
accomplish this, vehicles would further require integration of
electrical signals from existing front and side crash sensor
information into the mechanical system that controls the petitioned
buckle release technology, and presumably also require additional crash
sensors for rollover and rear-end crash events for vehicles without
such sensors. Crash imminent sensors, or sensors that detect an
impending crash, may also be needed.
    It is also unclear how such a seat belt feature would perform
during a slow rollover. NHTSA is concerned that releasing the seat belt
in a slow rollover could increase the risk of occupant ejection and
lead to rollover fatalities and serious injuries. Given that the
petitioner did not go into the specifics \3\ of how the integration of
electrical signals from vehicle crash sensors would work with the
requested mechanical seat belt feature, we have concerns that the
system would not act in time to keep the occupants restrained before
the tension load threshold was reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The petitioner's patent simply stated that the vehicle would
have the means to detect vehicle speed, oncoming vehicle speed,
occupant presence, occupant weight, etc., and that it would
communicate such information as needed to appropriately actuate the
invention, but it did not give specifics on how it would communicate
with the apparatus. It further assumed that all vehicles would have
all the cited detection capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Such a feature would also be a potential risk during normal vehicle
operation, e.g., children who cannot sit still or reach for items when
the vehicle is traveling below the 5 mph threshold would likely be
required to continuously re-buckle their seat belts during trips, which
poses a potential disturbance to the driver and a safety risk to the
child. Of greater concern would be that the parent would not be aware
that the child has inadvertently released their buckle. In addition,
for adult occupants the inadvertent seat belt release would present a
considerable annoyance.
    The petitioner further suggested that by requiring such a feature,
seat belt use would increase, especially among law enforcement and
emergency response personnel that fear vehicle entrapment or being
unable to immediately egress an engaged seat belt. While the petitioner
provided a newspaper article that discussed police officers' concerns
about time delays in tense situations if they have to undo their seat
belt,\4\ the petitioner did not demonstrate that police officer seat
belt use would increase if the requested rule were adopted. Similarly,
the petitioner also included only anecdotal information regarding
children being injured or strangled by seat belts, which would not
necessarily be addressed by the requested rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Fruhwirth, Jesse, Standard Examiner Davis Bureau, November
23, 2008, Page 1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, no information was provided to show how the petitioner
determined that 5 lbs. was a proper tension load. The petitioner merely
suggested that NHTSA can determine a more appropriate load, or
alternatively, it could be designed with a release load that adjusts
according to the occupant's size or weight. However, the agency
currently has no data or research findings that would allow for the
determination of an appropriate load value. For the technical reasons
previously discussed, the agency has no plans to devote resources
towards this at this time.

B. Preliminary Analysis of Real World Crash Data

    Although the petitioner did not provide data showing a real world
safety problem, the agency examined its crash data as part of
considering the petition using the National Automotive Sampling System
(NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) and Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Refer to the technical analysis in the docket for this
notice for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using 1997-2008 NASS data, the agency identified cases that: (1)
Involved at least one death to a belted occupant who was not completely
ejected and for which the case summary included text that suggested
submersion, immersion, drowning, or asphyxiation; and (2) involved at
least one death to a belted occupant who was not completely ejected and
suffered a burn injury. Based on our review of these 65 cases (29
submersion cases and 36 burn cases), the agency could not conclude that
any of the occupants would have benefitted from a rule requiring
releasable without unbuckling seat belts. While 22 cases, a weighted
estimate of 84 occupants (over the twelve-year period) were classified
as having an ``unknown potential benefit'' from such a rule, many of
those were unlikely to have benefitted because: Drugs and alcohol were
involved, other damage to the vehicle may have impacted extrication
(doors jammed shut), or the occupant may have been unconscious due to
blunt force trauma and unable to extricate themselves.
    The 2006-2008 FARS files were also searched for unejected belted
occupants for whom ``safety belts'' was listed as a vehicle
contributing factor, and three cases were identified. Upon review of
the three FARS case Police Accident Reports, none of the fatalities was
a result of not being able to unbuckle the seat belt.
    We also considered the potential unintended consequences that could
result from the petitioned change to FMVSS No. 209. As discussed in the
previous section, there are several scenarios where releasable without
unbuckling seat belts would not be desirable and may result in
increased

risk to the vehicle occupants. For example, child passenger safety is
an area of great importance to the agency. Children restrained using
seat belts that can be inadvertently released presents a major safety
concern, because children tend to move around more in their seats and
could easily be unaware that the seat belt could release if loaded when
the vehicle is stopped or travelling slowly. Similar risks could be
present for children in child restraints. As a result of the
inadvertent release of the seat belt by a child, the act of having to
get the child restrained again during a trip would be a distraction for
the driver and a large safety risk for the child. The child would be
exposed to an even greater risk if no one is aware that the child is
unrestrained and the child does not reattach their seat belt.
    In the previous section we also discussed how occupants of a
vehicle that is stationary \6\ or travelling below the buckle release
speed threshold that is involved in a collision would experience an
inadvertent buckle release upon loading of the belt, and how rollovers
are also a crash scenario where belts that are releasable without
unbuckling would be undesirable from a safety perspective. These
technical concerns and potential safety risks are insufficiently
addressed by the petition. Further, the petitioner has not shown that
his solution will not create additional problems, beyond those
mentioned herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (DOT HS 811
059) conducted between July 3, 2005 and December 31, 2007 found that
an estimated 16 percent (350,000) of the vehicles were stopped in
the traffic lane prior to the crash event (pg. 22, Table 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Analysis of Countermeasure Costs

    The petitioner cited a cost of $3.50 countermeasure cost per
seating position to comply with the petitioner's recommendation.
However, we are dubious of this minimal cost estimate, since the
petition did not account for the software and hardware integration
necessary to monitor the vehicle speed and determine whether it is
below the threshold for release. For seat belts to remain buckled if
the vehicle is traveling below the threshold for release and an
oncoming crash is detected, the device would require software and
integration of crash imminent detection for existing front and side
crash sensors and further installation cost and integration of rollover
and rear-end crash sensors. Such costs were not accounted for in the
petition.

V. Conclusion

    FMVSS No. 209 already requires the release mechanism to provide a
rapid and easy removal from the seat belt assembly. While the
petitioner cites concerns about death and injury of entrapped vehicle
occupants who are unable to unbuckle their seat belts, he does not
demonstrate that this is an actual real-world safety problem of any
significance. In rare instances where an extreme crash could cause the
release mechanism to be damaged or become inaccessible, emergency
medical services personnel also have their own specialized extrication
equipment. Should vehicle occupants have a concern about such a
situation, they can purchase aftermarket webbing cutters. The agency
reviewed its data on fatal crashes and could not definitively conclude
that any of the occupants would have benefitted from a rule requiring
seat belts that are releasable without unbuckling. We also conclude
that the potential for unintended consequences of inadvertent release
of the seat belt during normal vehicle operation and certain crash
scenarios, justify denying the petition.
    Therefore, NHTSA is denying the petition to amend FMVSS No. 209 to
include a new requirement that seat belts be releasable without
unbuckling. In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the
agency's review of the petition.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: August 19, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-21949 Filed 8-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52190-52194]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21199]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223; FRL-9933-09-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to

approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State
of Missouri. This final action will approve Missouri's SIP for the
Buick/Viburnum Trend lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
nonattainment area near Boss, Missouri. EPA proposed approval of this
plan on June 1, 2015. The applicable standard addressed in this action
is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes Missouri's
SIP satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
identified in EPA's 2008 Final Rule and will bring the area into
attainment of the 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m\3\) lead NAAQS
in the Buick/Viburnum Trend, Missouri area.
    In this action, EPA is also finalizing its approval of a revision
to the Missouri SIP to incorporate an amendment to an existing Missouri
regulation to restrict lead emissions from specific sources. The
amendment revises certain throughput and emissions limits applicable to
the Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF) in the Buick/Viburnum
Trend lead nonattainment area. Approval of this rule ensures
consistency between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensures
Federal enforceability of the revised state rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas
66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The
interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

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

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. EPA's Response to Comments
IV. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    In this document, EPA is granting final approval of Missouri's SIP
for the lead NAAQS nonattainment area of Buick/Viburnum Trend. The
applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS
promulgated by EPA in 2008 (73 FR 66964). EPA is also granting final
approval to portions of a revision to the State of Missouri Code of
State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.120, ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead
from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations''. This revision
pertains to throughput limits applicable to the BRRF, which is the
primary source of lead emissions in the Buick/Viburnum Trend
nonattainment area. EPA's proposal containing the background
information for this action can be found at 80 FR 30965, June 1, 2015.

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

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical
support document which is part of the docket, the revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including Section 110 and
implementing regulations.

III. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened June 1,
2015, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed
on July 1, 2015. During this period, EPA received one comment letter
from the Doe Run Resource Recycling Division dated July 1, 2015. The
comment letter and EPA's responses are summarized below.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that in the June 1, 2015, proposed
approval that the nomenclature for the Buick/Viburnum Trend
nonattainment area is inconsistent. Doe Run requests that the term
``Buick/Viburnum Trend'' be used throughout. Doe Run also states that
the secondary lead smelter nomenclature is incorrectly stated as ``the
Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF)'' and requests EPA to
correct the nomenclature to use ``The Buick Resource Recycling Facility
(BRRF)'' throughout.
    Response 1: This comment recommends typographical corrections to
the proposed rule that EPA has not relied upon in its decision making
for this final action, and EPA is therefore not changing its final
action based on this comment.
    Comment 2: Doe Run states that the heading for section V.A.1. in
the proposal is titled ``BRRF Process Description,'' but that it
contains both the BRRF process description and a discussion of the mine
activities. Doe Run requests that the section be retitled as ``Buick/
Viburnum Trend Process Description.''
    Response 2: See Response 1.
    Comment 3: Doe Run notes that section V.A.1. states ``BRRF operates
as a secondary smelter of lead, lead-containing materials including
spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets and shot, lead-containing glass
from cathode ray tubes, and lead-based paint chips from lead abatement
projects.'' Doe Run requests that the statement be revised to more
accurately reflect the facility operations by stating that ``BRRF
operates as a secondary lead smelter of lead, utilizing lead-containing
materials including spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets and shot,
lead-containing glass from cathode ray tubes, lead-based paint chips
from lead abatement projects, and other lead bearing materials.''
    Response 3: EPA notes that the process information provided in
section V of the proposal was reproduced from Missouri's attainment SIP
which was made available for a 30-day public comment period before the
document was submitted to EPA. EPA appreciates this comment as it
clarifies process-related information. However, this comment does not
substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and
EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this
comment.
    Comment 4: Doe Run notes that in the first paragraph of section
V.A.1., EPA states that ``Crushed and concentrated lead containing ore
was formerly processed at the Herculaneum primary lead smelter, but
since that facility ceased primary lead smelting in December 2013, the
ore gets shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.'' Doe Run
requests this statement to instead read, ``The processed ore, called
lead concentrate was formerly processed at the Herculaneum primary lead
smelter, but since that facility ceased primary

lead smelting in December 2013, the lead concentrate is currently
shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.''
    Response 4: Please see Response 3.
    Comment 5: Doe Run requests that EPA revise the third paragraph of
section V.A.1. from ``BRRF's production is limited to 175,000 tons of
total lead production each year . . .'' to ``175,000 tons of total
refined lead production per year . . .''
    Response 5: EPA disagrees. Section V.A.1. refers to the lead
production limit in Missouri regulation 10 Code of State Regulation
(CSR) 10-6.120, which states that ``This installation [BRRF] shall
limit total lead production to one hundred seventy-five thousand
(175,000) tons per year.'' 10 CSR 10-6.120 does not make a distinction
between total lead production and total refined lead production.
    Comment 6: In paragraph three of section V.A.1., EPA states that
``Spent batteries are stored in a battery bunker until processed in a
shredder.'' Doe Run requests that the statement read: ``Spent batteries
are stored in the containerized storage area until processed in the
battery shredder.''
    Response 6: Please see Response 3.
    Comment 7: In section V.A.1., EPA states that ``The batteries
further undergo a separation process under which the lead and metal
parts are separated from the plastic and other debris.'' Doe Run
requests that this statement be revised as follows: ``The batteries
further undergo a separation process under which the lead and metal
parts are separated from the plastic and other materials.'' Doe Run
also requests EPA to change ``The plastic and other debris are skimmed
off and sent to recycling facilities'' to ``The plastic is skimmed off
and sent to recycling facilities.''
    Response 7: Please see Response 3.
    Comment 8: In section V.A.1, the fifth paragraph states that ``The
lead sulfate paste is passed through a filter press and neutralized
with hydrated lime to form calcium sulfate . . .'' Doe Run requests
that this statement be revised to read: ``The lead sulfate paste is
passed through a filter press . . .''
    Response 8: Please see Response 3.
    Comment 9: Regarding the first paragraph in section V.A.2, Doe Run
disagrees with EPA's statement that the annual lead emissions from the
Casteel Mine and the K & D Crushing Operations are ``significant'' to
the total emissions of 18.34 tons per year. Doe Run further requests a
change in EPA's statement from ``processing of lead containing rock
until it becomes wet concentrate that is shipped to other customers,''
to ``processing of lead containing rock to produce lead concentrate to
be shipped to customers.''
    Response 9: The commenter makes two separate comments in its
``Ninth'' comment per the progression of its comment letter. For
consistency in numbering, EPA is also addressing these comments
together.
    Regarding Doe Run's comment that the Casteel Mine and the K & D
Crushing Operations are not ``significant'' to the total emissions of
18.34 tons per year, EPA disagrees. In Section 3, Emissions Inventory,
of Missouri's attainment SIP, four facilities, including the Casteel
Mine and K & D Crushing, are listed that reported more than 0.01 tpy
lead for inventory years 2009 through 2011. Missouri has determined
that these facilities are significant and required modeling in order to
determine their impacts at the monitor. This comment does not
substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and
EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this
comment.
    As summarized above, Doe Run has commented on the wording of the
third sentence in the first paragraph of section V.A.2. Please see
Response 1.
    Comment 10: In the third paragraph of section V.A.2, EPA states
that ``At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore is hauled from the active mining
faces to a central crusher where it is crushed . . .'' Doe Run requests
this sentence to be revised to state, ``At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore
is hauled from the active mining faces to an underground central
crusher where it is crushed . . .''
    Additionally, in this same paragraph, EPA states that ``After being
crushed aboveground to less than \5/8\-inch in size, the ore subjected
to wet milling and grinding with rods and ball mills . . .'' Doe Run
has requested the word ``is'' to be inserted between ``ore'' and
``subjected.''
    Response 10: Please see Response 1.
    Comment 11: In the fourth paragraph of section V.A.2., EPA states
``As stated above, the Herculaneum facility ceased operations smelting
operations in December 2013; thus, the concentrate is shipped overseas
to primary lead smelting operations or other customers.'' Doe Run
requests this sentence be revised to state ``As stated above, the
Herculaneum facility ceased smelting operations in December 2013; thus,
the concentrate is shipped overseas to customers' primary lead smelting
operations or other customers.''
    Response 11: Please see Response 1.
    Comment 12: Doe Run commented that ``mg/m\3\'' had been incorrectly
used in the proposal instead of ``[micro]g/m\3\'' throughout the
document.
    Response 12: EPA checked the Federal Register proposed rule at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223-
0001 and found that the correct units, [micro]g/m\3\, were used. No
change is necessary.
    Comment 13: Section V.D.f. states that ``By February 4, 2013,
install a dry lime SO2 scrubber to further process gases as
they exit the pulse-jet baghouse . . .'' Doe Run comments that this
statement does not accurately reflect the language of the Consent
Decree and it should read ``By February 4, 2013, install a dry lime
SO2 scrubber to further process the exit gas stream before
routing reverberatory furnace process to the main stack.''
    Response 13: EPA agrees but notes that the requirement is not in
the Consent Decree but rather is found in paragraph V, item 6.F. of the
2013 Consent Judgment (appendix M of the attainment SIP). As stated in
the proposal, Section V.D. contains a brief discussion of the control
measures. This comment further describes those control measures, but
does not substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment
SIP, and EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on
this comment.
    Comment 14: Doe Run comments that section V.D.i. references item
a.; however, it should reference item b.
    Response 14: EPA agrees. EPA notes that Section 5.1, Consent
Judgment Measures, of Missouri's attainment SIP also references item A.
However, as depicted in the process flow diagram on page A-7 in
Appendix A of Missouri's attainment SIP, for the reverberatory furnace,
EPA notes that Doe Run is correct; the Dry Scrubber Baghouse CD37
follows the exit gases from the reverberatory furnace and is not part
of the South Refinery described in item a. (depicted on page A-9 of
Missouri's attainment SIP). This comment does not substantively impact
the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore not
changing its proposed action based on this comment.
    Comment 15: Section V.D.j. states that ``By October 31, 2014,
install ``batwing'' style ventilation covers to improve . . .'' Doe Run
requests that this language be revised to state ``By October 31, 2014,
install ``batwing'' style ventilation covers, or covers with equivalent
or better capture efficiency to improve . . .''
    Response 15: As stated in the proposal, Section V.D. contains a
brief discussion of the control measures. This comment further
describes those control measures, but does not substantively

impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore
not changing its proposed action based on this comment.
    Comment 16: The fourth paragraph of section V. E. refers to the
``mines and mills.'' The statement should be revised to refer
specifically to the ``Buick Mine and Mill and the Casteel Mine.''
    Response 16: Please see Response 1.
    Comment 17: In section V.H.a., EPA states that the negative
pressure requirement is in ``inches Hg.'' Doe Run comments that the
correct units are ``mm Hg.''
    Response 17: Please see Response 1.
    Comment 18: Doe Run requests EPA to refer in the first paragraph of
section VI.B.to the limits of Missouri regulation 10-6.120 as ``175,000
tons of refined lead per year.'' Also, Doe Run comments that in section
VI.B. the proposal should consistently refer to ``lead'' rather than
``Pb.''
    Response 18: With regard to 10 CSR 10-6.120, please see Response 5.
With regard to the use the words ``lead'' and ``Pb,'' interchangeably,
please see Response 1.
    Comment 19: In the third paragraph of section VI.B., EPA states
that ``The modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP
are 176,482 tons of Pb produced per year.'' Doe Run requests that this
sentence be revised to state ``The modeled total emissions in the
attainment demonstration SIP are based on 176,482 tons of refined lead
produced per year.''
    Response 19: EPA agrees that the sentence should indicate that the
``modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP are based
on 176,482 tons of lead produced per year. As discussed above in
Responses 5 and 18, the language ``refined'' is not found in the
Missouri regulation.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP to approve
Missouri's SIP for the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead NAAQS nonattainment
area near Boss, Missouri. The applicable standard addressed in this
action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008 (73 FR 66964). EPA
is also granting final approval to portions of a revision to the State
of Missouri CSR 10-6.120, ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead from
Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations''.

Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Missouri
Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 (with the exclusions of Paragraph 10-6.120
(3)(B)1. and Table 1, and the 0.00087 gr/dscf main stack emissions
limit for BRRF) described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also
is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this proposed rule
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
    A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not
affect the finality of this rulemaking for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such future rule or action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 18, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52. 1320 amend the table in paragraph (c) by revising the
entry for Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 and the table in paragraph (d)
by adding entry (29) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State effective
       Missouri citation                Title              date        EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.120.......................  Restriction of             3/30/09   8/28/15 and         Paragraph (3)(B)1 and
                                  Emissions of Lead                    [Insert Federal     Table, Provision
                                  from Specific                        Register            Pertaining to
                                  Lead Smelter-                        citation].          Limitations of Lead
                                  Refinery                                                 Emissions from
                                  Installations.                                           Specific
                                                                                Installations, have
                                                                                not been approved as
                                                                                a part of the SIP.
                                                                                The requirement to
                                                                                limit main stack lead
                                                                                emissions at BRRF to
                                                                                0.00087 gr/dscf lead
                                                                                in Paragraph (3)(B)2
                                                                                has not been approved
                                                                                as a part of the SIP.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                            EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
         Name of source           Order/permit number  effective date    EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(29) Doe Run Buick Resource       Consent Judgment            7/29/13  8/28/15 [Insert       ...................
 Recycling Facility.               13IR-CC00016.                        Federal Register
                                                                        citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-21199 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P