[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32200-32211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12912]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0290; FRL-9911-73-Region 7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from 
the State of Missouri addressing the applicable requirements of Clean 
Air Act (CAA) section 110 for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for Lead (Pb), which requires that each state adopt 
and submit a SIP to support implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs 
are commonly referred to as ``infrastructure'' SIPs. The infrastructure 
requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of 
each state's air quality management

[[Page 32201]]

program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the 
CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0290, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Mail: Ms. Amy Bhesania, Air Planning and Development Branch, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air and Waste 
Management Division, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Ms. Amy 
Bhesania, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 7, Air and Waste Management Division, 11201 
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2014-0290. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or email information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and should be 
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 
66219 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
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: Ms. Amy Bhesania, Air Planning and 
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7147; fax number: (913) 551-7065; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides 
additional information by addressing the following questions:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. What are the applicable elements under sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2) related to the 2008 Pb NAAQS?
III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP 
submissions?
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of how the state addressed the relevant 
elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
V. What action is EPA proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing action on a December 20, 2011, SIP submission from 
Missouri that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 
110(a)(1) and (a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for states 
to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 
110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the 
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national 
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and 
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly 
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the 
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's 
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach 
such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the 
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term 
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to 
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions 
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such 
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to 
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of 
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to 
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and 
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address 
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

II. What are the applicable elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 
related to the 2008 Pb NAAQS?

    On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS 
(hereafter the 2008 Pb NAAQS). The level of the primary (health-based) 
standard was revised to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), 
measured as total suspended particles (TSP) and not to be exceeded with 
an averaging time of a rolling 3-month period. EPA also revised the 
secondary (welfare-based) standard to be identical to the primary 
standard (73 FR 66964).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although the effective date of the Federal Register notice 
for the final rule was January 12, 2009, the rule was signed by the 
Administrator and publicly disseminated on October 15, 2008. 
Therefore, the deadline for submittal of infrastructure SIPs for the 
2008 Pb NAAQS was October 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2008 Pb NAAQS, states typically have met many of the basic 
program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 
submissions in connection with previous NAAQS. Nevertheless, pursuant 
to section 110(a)(1), states have to review and revise, as appropriate, 
their existing SIPs to ensure that they are adequate to address the 
2008 Pb NAAQS. To assist states in meeting this statutory requirement, 
EPA issued guidance on October 14, 2011, addressing the infrastructure 
SIP elements required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb

[[Page 32202]]

NAAQS.\2\ EPA will address these elements below under the following 
headings: (A) Emission limits and other control measures; (B) Ambient 
air quality monitoring/data system; (C) Program for enforcement of 
control measures (PSD, New Source Review for nonattainment areas, and 
construction and modification of all stationary sources); (D) 
Interstate and international transport; (E) Adequate authority, 
resources, implementation, and oversight; (F) Stationary source 
monitoring system; (G) Emergency authority; (H) Future SIP revisions; 
(I) Nonattainment areas; (J) Consultation with government officials, 
public notification, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), and 
visibility protection; (K) Air quality and modeling/data; (L) 
Permitting fees; and (M) Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Guidance on 
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required 
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' Memorandum to EPA 
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, October 14, 2011 (2011 
Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP 
submissions?

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more 
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list 
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required 
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program 
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 
authority and substantive program provisions.\3\ EPA therefore believes 
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, 
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, 
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP 
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states 
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or 
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) 
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of 
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal 
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a 
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the 
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\4\ 
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and 
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address 
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) 
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for 
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation 
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two 
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be 
promulgated.\5\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all 
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, 
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable 
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions 
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; 
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \5\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is 
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific 
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., 
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of 
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific 
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of 
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single 
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a 
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a 
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow 
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing 
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make 
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP 
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either 
individually or in a larger combined action.\6\ Similarly, EPA 
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts 
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given 
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, 
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements 
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR 
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural 
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately 
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), 
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) 
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \7\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for 
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On 
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA 
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for 
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same 
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant 
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be 
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might 
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of 
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, 
for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure 
SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an 
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required 
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP

[[Page 32203]]

submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant 
elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types 
of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that 
attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the 
``applicable requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, 
attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures 
and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and 
authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP 
submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part 
C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for 
which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D 
planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP 
submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 
others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language 
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP 
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have 
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, 
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same 
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews 
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that 
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make 
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some 
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and 
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\9\ EPA 
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 
2013 (2013 Guidance).\10\ EPA developed this document to provide states 
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised 
NAAQS. While today's proposed action relies on the specific guidance 
issued for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, we have also considered this more recent 
2013 guidance where applicable (although not specifically issued for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS) and have found no conflicts between the issued 
guidance and review of Missouri's SIP submission. Within the 2013 
Guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP 
submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three 
years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made 
recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) 
that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.\11\ 
The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are 
germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA 
interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure 
SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address 
others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for 
compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 
110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to 
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the 
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether 
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 
states, as appropriate.
    \10\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \11\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to 
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit 
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light 
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to 
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding 
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a 
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of 
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this 
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, 
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement 
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA 
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP 
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that 
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately 
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the 
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program 
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are 
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are 
necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP 
submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 
the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions 
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program 
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural 
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD 
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including 
GHGs. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include 
provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 
51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the 
option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with 
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter 
optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 
the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a 
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the 
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a 
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the 
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether 
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the 
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA 
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every 
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in 
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and 
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an 
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the 
appropriate type of action in which to address possible

[[Page 32204]]

deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) 
Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to 
the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); 
(ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or 
``director's discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they 
purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while 
limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and 
(iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent 
with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 
FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) 
(``NSR Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure 
SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP 
for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the 
submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\12\ It is 
important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP 
submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval 
of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the 
three specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a 
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a 
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions 
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision 
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in 
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to 
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a 
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it 
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all 
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of 
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements 
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory 
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded 
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP 
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA 
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation 
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with 
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the 
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP 
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need 
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues 
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately 
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged 
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP 
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\13\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submissions.\14\ Significantly, EPA's 
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission 
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing 
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on 
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to 
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it 
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing 
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting 
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \14\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past 
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \15\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's evaluation of how the State addressed the relevant 
elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    On December 20, 2011, EPA Region 7 received Missouri's 
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb standard. This SIP 
submission became complete as a matter of law on June 20, 2012. EPA has 
reviewed Missouri's infrastructure SIP submission and the relevant 
statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in that 
submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP. Below is EPA's evaluation 
of how the state addressed the applicable elements of section 110(a)(2) 
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    (A) Emission limits and other control measures: Section 
110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and 
other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance 
and other related matters as needed to implement, maintain and enforce 
each NAAQS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirements of 
section 172, not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). Thus, 
section 110(a)(2)(A) does not require that states submit regulations 
or emissions limits specifically for attaining the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 
Those SIP provisions are due as part of each state's attainment 
plan, and will be addressed separately from the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(A). In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA 
is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. 
Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic 
structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Revised Statues of the State of Missouri (RSMo), otherwise 
referred to as Missouri's ``Air Conservation Law,'' and Missouri's Air 
Pollution Control Rules authorize the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources (MDNR) to regulate air quality and implement air quality 
control regulations. Specifically, 643.030, RSMo authorizes the Air 
Conservation

[[Page 32205]]

Commission (MACC) of the State of Missouri to control air pollution, 
which is defined in 643.020, RSMo to include air contaminants in 
quantities, of characteristics and of a duration which cause or 
contribute to injury to human, plant, or animal life or health or to 
property. Missouri's Air Conservation Law, 643.050, RSMo, authorizes 
the MACC to classify and identify air contaminants. Missouri rule 10 
CSR 10-6.020 ``Definitions and Common Reference Tables'' is also used 
to define terms that are necessary to classify pollutants and implement 
and enforce standards.
    Missouri's rule 10 CSR 10-1.010 ``General Organization'' reiterates 
the MACC's responsibility to establish air quality control regions as 
well as adopt, promulgate, amend and rescind rules. Subsection (3)B of 
10 CSR 10-1.010 tasks the MDNR Air Pollution Control Program with 
carrying out the policies of the MACC. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.010 
``Ambient Air Quality Standards'' adopts the 2008 Pb standard as 
promulgated by EPA. In addition, section (12) of 10 CSR 10-6.030 
``Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources'' establishes the 
appropriate sampling method for Pb from air pollution sources, and 
similarly, subsections (4)(G) and (4)(O) of 10 CSR 10-6.040 ``Reference 
Methods'' incorporate by reference the relevant appendices in 40 CFR 
part 50 for measuring and calculating the concentration of Pb in the 
atmosphere to determine whether the standard has been met. Therefore, 
Pb is an air contaminant which may be regulated under Missouri law.
    Missouri's Air Conservation Law, 643.050, RSMo authorizes the MACC, 
among other things, to regulate the use of equipment known to be a 
source of air contamination and to establish emissions limitations for 
air contaminant sources. Specifically to create control measures for 
Pb, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead 
from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations'' provides specific 
Pb emission limitations for both the primary and secondary smelter 
operations in Missouri. Missouri also establishes timetables for 
compliance in its rules, as appropriate.
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities 
and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP adequately addresses the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is 
proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, SIP 
submission.
    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 
110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for 
establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collection 
and analysis of ambient air quality data, and making these data 
available to EPA upon request.
    To address this element, 643.050, RSMo provides the enabling 
authority necessary for Missouri to fulfill the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(B). The Air Pollution Control Program and Air Quality 
Analysis Section, within MDNR, implement these requirements. Along with 
their other duties, the monitoring program collects air monitoring 
data, quality assures the results, and reports the data. Further, 
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-1.010(2)(D) ``General Organization'' outlines 
the roles, duties and obligations of the Air Pollution Control Program 
including those for air quality monitoring.
    MDNR submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA for approval, 
including its Pb monitoring network, as required by 40 CFR 58.10. Prior 
to submission to EPA, Missouri makes the plan available for public 
review on MDNR's Web site at (http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/monitoring/monitoringnetworkplan.pdf). MDNR also conducts five-year 
monitoring network assessments, including the Pb monitoring network, as 
required by 40 CFR 58.10(d). On November 22, 2013, EPA approved 
Missouri's 2013 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Plan and on October 27, 
2010, EPA approved Missouri's Five-Year Air Monitoring Network 
Assessment. Subsection (4)(G) of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.040 
``Reference Methods'' requires that ambient concentrations of Pb be 
measured in accordance with the applicable Federal regulations in 40 
CFR part 50, or an equivalent method as approved by EPA pursuant to 40 
CFR part 53. Furthermore, Missouri submits air quality data to EPA's 
Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner, pursuant to the provisions 
of the state's grant work plans developed in conjunction with EPA.
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities 
and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP meets the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve 
this element of the December 20, 2011 submission.
    (C) Program for enforcement of control measures (PSD, New Source 
Review for nonattainment areas, and construction and modification of 
all stationary sources): Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to 
include the following three elements in the SIP: (1) A program 
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures described in section 
110(a)(2)(A); (2) a program for the regulation of the modification and 
construction of stationary sources as necessary to protect the 
applicable NAAQS (i.e., state-wide permitting of minor sources); and 
(3) a permit program to meet the major source permitting requirements 
of the CAA (for areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for 
the NAAQS in question).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As discussed in further detail below, this infrastructure 
SIP rulemaking will not address the Missouri program for 
nonattainment area related provisions, since EPA considers 
evaluation of these provisions to be outside the scope of 
infrastructure SIP actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Enforcement of SIP Measures. With respect to enforcement of 
requirements of the SIP, the Missouri statutes provide authority for 
MDNR to enforce the requirements of the Air Conservation Law, and any 
regulations, permits, or final compliance orders issued under the 
provisions of that law. For example, 643.080, RSMo authorizes MDNR to 
issue compliance orders for violations of the Air Conservation Law, 
rules promulgated thereunder (which includes rules comprising the 
Missouri SIP), and conditions of any permits (which include permits 
under SIP-approved permitting programs). Missouri Air Conservation Law 
643.085, RSMo authorizes MDNR to assess administrative penalties for 
violations of the statute, regulations, permit conditions, or 
administrative orders. In addition, 643.151, RSMo authorizes the MACC 
to initiate civil actions for these violations, and to seek penalties 
and injunctive relief to prevent any further violation. The Air 
Conservation Law 643.191, RSMo provides for criminal penalties for 
known violations of the statute, standards, permit conditions, or 
regulations promulgated thereunder.
    In addition, state regulations governing the MACC in subsection (3) 
of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-1.010 ``General Organization'' reinforce the 
state's authority by authorizing the MACC to make investigations, make 
orders and determinations, and refer alleged violations to the county 
prosecutor or attorney general. Similarly, the director of MDNR is 
authorized to investigate complaints, issue abatement orders, recommend 
that legal action be taken by the attorney general and enforce

[[Page 32206]]

provisions of the Air Conservation Law. Paragraph (3)(B)4.B. 
establishes the Air Pollution Control Program's Compliance and 
Enforcement section and its duties.
    (2) Minor New Source Review. Section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires 
that the SIP include measures to regulate construction and modification 
of stationary sources to protect the NAAQS. With respect to smaller 
state-wide minor sources (Missouri's major source permitting program is 
discussed in (3) below), Missouri has a SIP-approved program under rule 
10 CSR 10-6.060 ``Construction Permits Required'' to review such 
sources to ensure, among other requirements, that new and modified 
sources will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. The state rule 
contains two general categories of sources subject to the minor source 
permitting program. The first category is ``de minimis'' sources 
(regulated at 10 CSR 10-6.060(5))--sources that are not exempted or 
excluded by rule 10 CSR 10-6.061 ``Construction Permit Exemptions'' or 
are permitted under rule 10 CSR 10-6.062 ``Construction Permits By 
Rule'' and emit below specified levels defined at 10 CSR 10-6.020(3)(A) 
``Definitions and Common Reference Tables.'' Permits for these sources 
may only be issued if any construction or modification at the source 
does not result in net emissions increases above ``de minimis'' levels.
    The second category of minor sources are those that emit above the 
de minimis levels, but below the major source significance levels. 
Permits for these sources may only be issued after a determination, 
among other requirements, that the proposed source or modification 
would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS (10 CSR 
10-6.060(6)).
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's 
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb standard with respect to the general 
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP 
that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary 
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. In this 
action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the state's 
existing minor NSR program to the extent that it is inconsistent with 
EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has maintained that the 
CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP submissions correct 
any defects in existing EPA-approved provisions of minor NSR programs 
in order for EPA to approve the infrastructure SIP for element (C) 
(e.g., 76 FR 41076-41079).
    (3) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. 
Missouri also has a program approved by EPA as meeting the requirements 
of part C, relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air 
quality. In order to demonstrate that Missouri has met this sub-
element, this PSD program must cover requirements not just for the 2008 
Pb NAAQS, but for all other regulated NSR pollutants as well. As stated 
in the October 14, 2011, Pb Infrastructure SIP guidance, EPA has not 
proposed to amend the PSD regulations with regard to the Pb NAAQS 
because it believes that, generally, there is sufficient guidance and 
regulations already in place to fully implement the revised Pb NAAQS.
    In a previous action on June 21, 2013, EPA determined that that 
Missouri has a program in place that meets all the PSD requirements 
related to all other regulated NSR pollutants (78 FR 37457). Missouri 
has demonstrated that its PSD program covers the requirements for the 
Pb NAAQS and all other regulated NSR pollutants through section (8) of 
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.060 ``Construction Permits Required.''
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities 
and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 
2008 Pb NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve this element of the December 
20, 2011, submission.
    (D) Interstate and international transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
includes four requirements referred to as prongs 1 through 4. Prongs 1 
and 2 are provided at section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); prongs 3 and 4 are 
provided at section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
requires SIPs to include adequate provisions prohibiting any source or 
other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing 
significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of any 
NAAQS in another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to 
include adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of 
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required 
of any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality 
or to protect visibility.
    With respect to prongs 1 and 2, the physical properties of Pb 
prevent Pb emissions from experiencing a significant degree of travel 
in the ambient air. No complex chemistry is needed to form Pb or Pb 
compounds in the ambient air; therefore, concentrations of Pb are 
typically highest near Pb sources. More specifically, there is a sharp 
decrease in Pb concentrations as the distance from the source 
increases. According to EPA's report entitled Our Nation's Air: Status 
and Trends Through 2010, Pb concentrations that are not near a source 
of Pb are approximately 8 times less than the typical concentrations 
near the source (http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2011/report/fullreport.pdf). EPA believes that the requirements of prongs 1 and 2 
can be satisfied through a state's assessment as to whether a lead 
source located within its state in close proximity to a state border 
has emissions that contribute significantly to the nonattainment in or 
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the neighboring state.
    Missouri has two Pb nonattainment areas with sources of Pb 
emissions over 0.5 tons per year (tpy). The first area is the Buick/
Viburnum Trend area with four Pb-emitting sources. These sources are 
located approximately 90 miles away from any state border and therefore 
do not have an impact on any other state. The other area, Herculaneum, 
has one source with current Pb emissions over 0.5 tpy. This source is 
on the banks of the Mississippi River, just across from the State of 
Illinois. The Herculaneum facility is the only Pb source in Missouri 
near enough to a state border to have the potential for an impact on 
another state's ambient air. For this source, in October 2010 the 
facility owner, The Doe Run Company, entered into a Consent Decree with 
EPA and MDNR to cease smelting operations at the Herculaneum facility 
on or before April 30, 2014.\18\ On April 14, 2013, EPA received, as 
part of the attainment demonstration for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, modeling 
from MDNR. EPA has conducted an independent evaluation of the modeling, 
including the impacts of the facility shutdown, and agrees that the 
facility will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in Illinois. EPA notes 
that this is not a determination of whether the modeling submitted by 
Missouri supports approval of its 2008 Pb NAAQS attainment plan, as 
that matter will be the subject of a future SIP action as discussed 
below in the analysis of Nonattainment areas, section 110(a)(2)(I). 
However, EPA has verified that the modeling was done in accordance with 
the necessary guidance

[[Page 32207]]

under 40 CFR 51, appendix W (Guidance on Air Quality Models), and that 
the modeling demonstrated that this Pb source does not have a 
significant impact on Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ U.S. and State of Missouri vs. Doe Run Resources 
Corporation, Multimedia Consent Decree, dated October 11, 2010; 
lodged March 11, 2013 (Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-1895-JCH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PSD requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3, EPA notes that Missouri's satisfaction of 
the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for attainment/
unclassifiable areas of the 2008 Pb NAAQS have been detailed in the 
section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). For sources not subject to PSD 
for any one of the pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA 
because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS, Missouri has 
adopted the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) provisions required 
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS through section (7) of Missouri rule, 10 CSR 10-
6.060, ``Construction Permits Required.'' EPA also notes that the 
proposed action in that section related to PSD is consistent with the 
proposed approval related to PSD for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4, significant impacts 
from Pb emissions from stationary sources are expected to be limited to 
short distances from the source and most, if not all, Pb stationary 
sources are located at distances from Class I areas such that 
visibility impacts would be negligible. Although Pb can be a component 
of coarse and fine particles, Pb generally comprises a small fraction 
of coarse and fine particles. Furthermore, when evaluating the extent 
that Pb could impact visibility, Pb-related visibility impacts were 
found to be insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10%).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Analysis by Mark Schmidt, OAQPS, ``Ambient Pb's 
Contribution to Class I Area Visibility Impairment,'' June 17, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also requires that the SIP insure 
compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 of 
the CAA, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, 
respectively.
    Section 126(a) of the CAA requires new or modified sources to 
notify neighboring states of potential impacts from sources within the 
state. Missouri regulations require that affected states receive notice 
prior to the commencement of any construction or modification of a 
source. Missouri's rule 10 CSR 10-6.060(6), ``Construction Permits 
Required'' requires that the review of all PSD permit applications 
follow the procedures of section (12)(A), Appendix A. Appendix A, in 
turn, requires that the permitting authority shall issue a draft permit 
for public comment, with notification to affected states on or before 
the time notice is provided to the public. In addition, no Missouri 
source or sources have been identified by EPA as having any interstate 
impacts under section 126 in any pending actions relating to any air 
pollutant.
    Section 115 of the CAA authorizes EPA to require a state to revise 
its SIP under certain conditions to alleviate international transport 
into another country. There are no final findings under section 115 of 
the CAA against Missouri with respect to any air pollutant. Thus, the 
state's SIP does not need to include any provisions to meet the 
requirements of section 115.
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities 
and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed 
to address sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prongs 1 through 4 and 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this 
element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
    (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight: 
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that SIPs provide for the following: (1) 
Necessary assurances that the state (and other entities within the 
state responsible for implementing the SIP) will have adequate 
personnel, funding, and authority under state or local law to implement 
the SIP, and that there are no legal impediments to such 
implementation; (2) requirements that the state comply with the 
requirements relating to state boards, pursuant to section 128 of the 
CAA; and (3) necessary assurances that the state has responsibility for 
ensuring adequate implementation of any plan provision for which it 
relies on local governments or other entities to carry out that portion 
of the plan.
    (1) Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to establish that they 
have adequate personnel, funding and authority. With respect to 
adequate authority, we have previously discussed Missouri's statutory 
and regulatory authority to implement the 2008 Pb NAAQS, primarily in 
the discussion of section 110(a)(2)(A) above. Neither Missouri nor EPA 
has identified any legal impediments in the state's SIP to 
implementation of the NAAQS.
    With respect to adequate resources, MDNR asserts that it has 
adequate personnel to implement the SIP. The infrastructure SIP 
submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS describes the regulations governing 
the various functions of personnel within the Air Pollution Control 
Program, including the Administration, Technical Support (Air Quality 
Analysis), Planning, Enforcement, and Permit Sections of the program 
(10 CSR 10-1.010(2)(D) ``Ambient Air Quality Standards'').
    With respect to funding, the Air Conservation Law requires the MACC 
to establish an annual emissions fee for sources in order to fund the 
reasonable costs of administering various air pollution control 
programs. The Air Conservation Law, 643.079, RSMo provides for the 
deposit of the fees into various subaccounts (e.g., a subaccount for 
the Title V operating permit program used for Title V implementation 
activities; a subaccount for non-Title V air pollution control program 
activities). The state uses funds in the non-Title V subaccounts, along 
with general revenue funds and EPA grants under, for example, sections 
103 and 105 of the CAA, to fund the programs. EPA conducts periodic 
program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate resources and 
funding to, among other things, implement the SIP.
    With respect to authority, Chapter 643, RSMo provides the authority 
necessary to carry out the SIP requirements as referenced above in 
element A.
    (2) Conflict of interest provisions--section 128. Section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each state SIP meet the requirements of 
section 128, relating to representation on state boards and conflicts 
of interest by members of such boards. Section 128(a)(1) requires that 
any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under 
the CAA must have at least a majority of members who represent the 
public interest and do not derive any ``significant portion'' of their 
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under the 
CAA. Section 128(a)(2) requires that members of such a board or body, 
or the head of an agency with similar powers, adequately disclose any 
potential conflicts of interest.
    On June 21, 2013, EPA approved Missouri's SIP revision addressing 
the section 128 requirements (78 FR 37457). For a detailed discussion 
on EPA's analysis of how Missouri meets the section 128 requirements, 
see EPA's April 10, 2013, proposed approval of Missouri's 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP (78 FR 21281).
    (3) With respect to assurances that the state has responsibility to 
implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies 
to carry out

[[Page 32208]]

portions of the plan, 643.190, RSMo designates the MDNR as the air 
pollution control agency ``for all purposes'' of the CAA. Although 
643.140, RSMo authorizes the MACC to grant local governments such as 
cities or counties authority to carry out their own air pollution 
control programs, the MACC retains authority to enforce the provisions 
of Missouri's Air Conservation Law in these local areas, 
notwithstanding any such authorization (643.140.4, RSMo). The MACC may 
also suspend or repeal the granting of authority if the local 
government is enforcing any local rules in a manner inconsistent with 
state law (643.140.10, RSMo).
    There are three local air agencies that conduct air quality work in 
Missouri: Kansas City, Springfield/Greene County and St. Louis County. 
The MDNR's Air Pollution Control Program has a signed Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) with Kansas City and Springfield/Greene County and 
a draft agreement for St. Louis County (to be finalized) which outlines 
the responsibilities for air quality activities with each local agency. 
The MDNR Air Program oversees the activities of the local agencies to 
ensure adequate implementation of the Missouri SIP. EPA conducts 
reviews of the local program activities in conjunction with its 
oversight of the state program.
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and 
provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed 
to address section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing 
to approve this element of the December 20, 2011 submission.
    (F) Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) 
requires states to establish a system to monitor emissions from 
stationary sources and to submit periodic emission reports. Each SIP 
shall require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of 
equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners 
or operators of stationary sources, to monitor emissions from such 
sources. The SIP shall also require periodic reports on the nature and 
amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and 
requires that the state correlate the source reports with emission 
limitations or standards established under the CAA. These reports must 
be made available for public inspection at reasonable times.
    To address this element, 643.050.1(3)(a) of the Air Conservation 
Law authorizes the MACC to require persons engaged in operations which 
result in air pollution to monitor or test emissions and to file 
reports containing information relating to rate, period of emission and 
composition of effluent, and 643.192.2, RSMo requires an annual report 
that summarizes changes in air quality measured by MDNR and local and 
county air pollution control agencies. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.030 
``Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources'' incorporates various EPA 
reference methods for sampling and testing source emissions, including 
methods for Pb emissions. The Federal test methods are in 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A. Using these particular reference methods for Pb 
emissions, 10 CSR 10-6.120 ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead From 
Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations'' has stack testing and 
reporting requirements for certain stationary sources of Pb emissions 
in Missouri.
    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.110 ``Reporting & Emission Data, Emission 
Fees, and Process Information'' also requires monitoring of emissions 
and filing of periodic reports on emissions (see (4)(A) for the 
specific information required). Missouri uses this information to track 
progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, developing control and 
maintenance strategies, identifying sources and general emission 
levels, and determining compliance with emission regulations and 
additional EPA requirements. Missouri makes this information available 
to the public (10 CSR 10-6.110(3)(D)). Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.210 
``Confidential Information,'' specifically excludes emissions data from 
confidential treatment. Under that rule emissions data includes the 
results of any emissions testing or monitoring required to be reported 
by sources under Missouri's air pollution control rules (10 CSR 10-
6.210(3)(B)2).
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities 
and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed 
to address section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing 
to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
    (G) Emergency authority: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires SIPs to 
provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and 
substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment 
(comparable to the authorities provided in section 303 of the CAA), and 
to include contingency plans to implement such authorities as 
necessary.
    The Air Conservation Law, 643.090.1, RSMo authorizes the MACC or 
the director of MDNR to declare an emergency where the ambient air, 
``due to meteorological conditions and a buildup of air contaminants'' 
in Missouri, may present an ``emergency risk to the public health, 
safety, or welfare.'' The MACC or director may, with the written 
approval of the governor, by order prohibit, restrict or condition all 
sources of air contaminants contributing to the emergency condition, 
during such periods of time necessary to alleviate or lessen the 
effects of the emergency condition. The statute also enables the MACC 
to promulgate implementing regulations. Even in the absence of an 
emergency condition, 643.090.2, RSMo also authorizes the MACC or the 
director to issue ``cease and desist'' orders to any specific person 
who is either engaging or may engage in activities which involve a 
significant risk of air contamination or who is discharging into the 
ambient air any air contaminant, including Pb, and such activity or 
discharge presents a clear and present danger to public health or 
welfare. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-1.010 ``General Organization'' enlists 
the MACC to develop, and the director to enact, air pollution emergency 
alert procedures.
    Based on EPA's experience to date with the Pb NAAQS and designated 
Pb nonattainment areas, EPA expects that such an event would be 
unlikely and, if it were to occur, would be the result of a malfunction 
or other emergency situation at a relatively large source of Pb. 
Accordingly, EPA believes that the central components of a contingency 
plan would be to reduce emissions from the source at issue (if 
necessary, by curtailing operations) and public communication as 
needed. EPA believes that Missouri's statutes referenced above provide 
the requisite authority to the MACC and the director of MDNR to address 
such situations.
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities 
and provisions referenced in that submission or referenced in 
Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP adequately addresses 
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve 
this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
    (H) Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires states to 
have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the 
NAAQS, availability of

[[Page 32209]]

improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to an EPA 
finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS.
    In addition to the MACC's general enabling authority in 643.050, 
RSMo of the Air Conservation Law, discussed previously in element (A), 
643.055.1, RSMo grants the MACC and MDNR authority to promulgate rules 
and regulations to establish standards and guidelines, to ensure that 
Missouri complies with the provisions of the Federal CAA. Missouri's 
rule 10 CSR 10-1.010(2) ``General Organization'' grants similar powers 
to MDNR. This includes the authority to submit SIP revisions to the EPA 
for approval as necessary to respond to a revised NAAQS and to respond 
to EPA findings of substantial inadequacy (e.g., 71 FR 46860 (August 
15, 2006), in which EPA approved Missouri rules promulgated in response 
to EPA's NOX SIP call for Missouri and other states).
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities 
and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has adequate authority to address 
section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve 
this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
    (I) Nonattainment areas: Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the 
case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment 
areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, 
relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas.
    As noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP 
submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for 
designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, 
are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 
110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on part D 
attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed 
by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
    (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification, 
PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to 
meet the applicable requirements of the following CAA provisions: (1) 
Section 121, relating to interagency consultation regarding certain CAA 
requirements; (2) section 127, relating to public notification of NAAQS 
exceedances and related issues; and (3) part C of the CAA, relating to 
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility 
protection.
    (1) With respect to interagency consultation, the SIP should 
provide a process for consultation with general-purpose local 
governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local 
governments, and any Federal Land Manager having authority over Federal 
land to which the SIP applies. Section 643.050.3 RSMo of the Missouri 
Air Conservation Law requires the MACC to consult and cooperate with 
other Federal and state agencies, and with political subdivisions, for 
the purpose of prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution. 
Missouri also has appropriate interagency consultation provisions in 
its preconstruction permit program. For instance, Missouri rule 10 CSR 
10-6.060(12)(B)2.E ``Construction Permits Required'' requires that when 
a permit goes out for public comment, the permitting authority must 
provide notice to local air pollution control agencies, the chief 
executive of the city and county where the installation or modification 
would be located, any comprehensive regional land use planning agency, 
any state air program permitting authority, and any Federal Land 
Manager whose lands may be affected by emissions from the installation 
or modification.
    (2) With respect to the requirements for public notification in 
section 127, the infrastructure SIP should provide citations to 
regulations in the SIP requiring the air agency to regularly notify the 
public of instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded; advise 
the public of the health hazard associated with such exceedances; and 
enhance public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances 
and of ways in which the public can participate in the regulatory and 
other efforts to improve air quality. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.130 
``Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution 
Potential,'' discussed previously in connection with the state's 
authority to address emergency episodes, contains provisions for public 
notification of various air pollutant levels, and measures which can be 
taken by the public to reduce concentrations. In addition, information 
regarding air pollution and related issues, is provided on an MDNR Web 
site, http://www.dnr.missouri.gov/env/apcp/index.html.
    (3) With respect to the applicable requirements of part C of the 
CAA, relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality 
and visibility protection, as noted in above under element (C), the 
Missouri SIP meets the PSD requirements, incorporating the Federal rule 
by reference. With respect to the visibility component of section 
110(a)(2)(J), EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and 
regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. However, 
when EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, these visibility and regional 
haze requirements under part C do not change. EPA believes that there 
are no new visibility protection requirements under part C as a result 
of a revised NAAQS. Therefore, there are no newly applicable visibility 
protection obligations pursuant to element J after the promulgation of 
a new or revised NAAQS.
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities 
and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has met the applicable requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in the state and is 
therefore proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, 
submission.
    (K) Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires 
that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling, as prescribed by 
EPA, to predict the effects on ambient air quality of any emissions of 
any NAAQS pollutant, and for submission of such data to EPA upon 
request.
    Missouri has authority to conduct air quality modeling and report 
the results of such modeling to EPA. Section 643.050 of the Air 
Conservation Law provides the MACC with the general authority to 
develop a general comprehensive plan to prevent, abate and control air 
pollution. Missouri's Air Conservation Law 643.055, RSMo grants the 
MACC the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to establish 
standards and guidelines to ensure that Missouri is in compliance with 
the provisions of the CAA. As an example of regulatory authority to 
perform modeling for purposes of determining NAAQS compliance, Missouri 
rule 10 CSR 10-1.010(3)(B)4.D ``General Organization'' establishes the 
air quality modeling and air quality analysis functions for the Air 
Program. In addition, Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10-6.060(12)(F) 
``Construction Permits Required'' requires the use of EPA-approved air 
quality models (e.g., those found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W) for 
construction permitting. Rule 10 CSR 10-6.110(4) ``Reporting & Emission 
Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information'' requires specified 
sources of air pollution to report emissions to MDNR, which among other 
purposes

[[Page 32210]]

may be utilized in modeling analyses. These data are available to any 
member of the public, upon request (10 CSR 10-6.110(3)(D)).
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities 
and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed 
to address section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing 
to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.
    (L) Permitting Fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require 
each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to the permitting 
authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, to 
cover the cost of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a 
permit, and, if the permit is issued, the costs of implementing and 
enforcing the terms of the permit. The fee requirement applies until a 
fee program established by the state pursuant to Title V of the CAA, 
relating to operating permits, is approved by EPA.
    Section 643.079 of the Air Conservation Law provides authority for 
MDNR to collect permit fees, including Title V fees. EPA approved 
Missouri's Title V program in May 1997 (see 62 FR 26405). The permit 
application fees are codified in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.065 
``Operating Permits.'' In addition to the fees directly related to 
implementation and enforcement of Missouri's Title V program, 
additional construction permit fees are assessed and collected per 
state rule 10 CSR 10-6.060 ``Construction Permits Required.'' EPA 
reviews the Missouri Title V program, including Title V fee structure, 
separately from this proposed action. Because the Title V program and 
associated fees legally are not part of the SIP, the infrastructure SIP 
action we are proposing today does not preclude EPA from taking future 
action regarding Missouri's Title V program.
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities 
and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, EPA believes that the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) are met 
and is proposing to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, 
submission.
    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 
110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to provide for consultation and 
participation by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    Missouri's Air Conservation Law 643.050.3, RSMo requires that the 
MACC encourage political subdivisions to handle air pollution control 
problems within their respective jurisdictions to the extent possible 
and practicable, and to provide assistance to those political 
subdivisions. The MACC is also required to advise, consult and 
cooperate with other political subdivisions in Missouri. The Air 
Conservation Law 643.140, RSMo, provides the mechanism for local 
political subdivisions to enact and enforce their own air pollution 
control regulations, subject to the oversight of the MACC. As directed 
in subparagraph (2)(D)4.B. of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-1.010 ``General 
Organization,'' the Air Quality Planning Section must meet all ``public 
participation requirements of state and Federal laws for rulemaking and 
SIP revisions.'' The MDNR's Air Pollution Control Program has a signed 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Kansas City and Springfield/
Greene County and a draft agreement with St. Louis County (to be 
finalized) which outlines the responsibilities for air quality 
activities with each local agency. In addition, MDNR participates in 
community meetings and consults with and participates in interagency 
consultation groups such as the Metropolitan Planning Organizations in 
both Kansas City and St. Louis. In Kansas City, MDNR works with the 
Mid-America Regional Council, and in St. Louis, MDNR works with East-
West Gateway Coordinating Council of Governments.
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities 
and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed 
to address section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing 
to approve this element of the December 20, 2011, submission.

V. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve the December 20, 2011, infrastructure 
SIP submission from Missouri which addresses the requirements of CAA 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the following infrastructure 
elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), 
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). As 
discussed in each applicable section of this rulemaking, EPA is not 
proposing action on section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or 
Plan Revisions Under Part D and on the visibility protection portion of 
section 110(a)(2)(J).
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission and 
relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced 
in this submission or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that 
Missouri has the infrastructure to address all applicable required 
elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except otherwise noted) to 
ensure that the 2008 Pb NAAQS are implemented in the state.
    We are hereby soliciting comment on this proposed action. Final 
rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    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 
proposed 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 proposed action:
     is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms 
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 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);

[[Page 32211]]

     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).
    In addition, this rulemaking does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110 
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 16, 2014.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2014-12912 Filed 6-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P