Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21281 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0302; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NM–019–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

AD action by May 28, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 87–02–07, 

Amendment 39–5506 (Docket No. 86–NM– 

175–AD; 52 FR 518–01, January 7, 1987). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 737–100, –200, –200C, and –300 series 

airplanes, certified in any category, as 

identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737–28– 

1286, dated January 10, 2012. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 28, Fuel. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

standard access doors installed where impact 

resistant access doors are required and 

reports of impact resistant doors without 

stencils. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

foreign object penetration of the wing tank, 

which could lead to a fuel leak near ignition 

sources (engine, hot brakes), consequently 

leading to a fuel-fed fire. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection and Corrective Actions 

Within 72 months after the effective date 

of this AD, do a general visual inspection of 

the left-wing and right-wing fuel tank access 

doors to determine that impact resistant 

access doors are installed in the correct 

locations, and an inspection for proper 

application of stencils and index markers of 

impact resistance access doors; and do all 

applicable corrective actions; in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–28–1286, dated 

January 10, 2012. Do all applicable corrective 

actions before further flight. 

(h) Maintenance Program Revision 

Within 60 days after the effective date of 

this AD, revise the maintenance program to 

incorporate airworthiness limitation (AWL) 

57–AWL–01, as specified in Section C, 

Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)—Fuel 

Systems, of the Boeing 737–100/200/200C/ 

300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs), D6–38278–CMR, 

dated August 2012. 

(i) No Alternative Critical Design 

Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs) 

After accomplishing the revision required 

by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative 

CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are 

approved as an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this 

AD. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO 

to make those findings. For a repair method 

to be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Suzanne Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

28, 2013. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08335 Filed 4–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2013–0208; FRL–9800–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri; Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing action on 

four Missouri State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submissions. First, EPA is 

proposing to approve portions of two 

SIP submissions from the State of 

Missouri addressing the applicable 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) for 

the 1997 and 2006 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). The CAA 

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 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is 

also proposing to approve two 

additional SIP submissions from 

Missouri, one addressing the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

program in Missouri, and another 

addressing the requirements applicable 

to any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders of the 

CAA, both of which support 

requirements associated with 

infrastructure SIPs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2013–0208, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: bhesania.amy@epa.gov. 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21282 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, Regions I–X, October 2, 2007 (2007 

Memo). 

2William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

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–2013– 

0208. 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 8:00 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: 

bhesania.amy@epa.gov. 

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 is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

infrastructure SIP? 

III. What elements are applicable under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

IV. What is the scope of this rulemaking as 

it relates to infrastructure SIPs? 

V. What is EPA’s evaluation of how the state 

addressed the relevant elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

VI. What are the requirements of the PM2.5

PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule for PSD 

SIP Programs? 

VII. How Does the September 5, 2012 

Missouri PSD submission satisfy the 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC rule? 

VIII. What are the additional provisions of 

the September 5, 2012 SIP submission 

that EPA is proposing to take action on? 

IX. What action is EPA proposing? 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

In today’s proposed rulemaking, EPA 

is proposing action on four Missouri SIP 

submissions. EPA received the first 

submission on February 27, 2007, 

addressing the infrastructure SIP 

requirements relating to the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA received the second 

submission on December 28, 2009, 

addressing the infrastructure SIP 

requirements relating to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. In a previous action EPA 

approved section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

(II)—Interstate and international 

transport requirements of Missouri’s 

February 27, 2007, SIP submission for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (72 FR 25975, 

May 8, 2007); and EPA disapproved 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate and 

international transport requirements of 

Missouri’s December 28, 2009, SIP 

submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

(76 FR 43156, July 20, 2011). Therefore, 

in today’s action, we are not proposing 

to act on these portions since they have 

already been acted upon by EPA. If EPA 

takes final action as proposed, we will 

have acted on both the February 27, 

2007, and the December 28, 2009, 

submissions in their entirety excluding 

those provisions that are not within the 

scope of today’s rulemaking as 

identified in section IV for both the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

submissions. 

The third submission was received by 

EPA on September 5, 2012. This 

submission revises Missouri’s rule in 

Title 10, Division 10, Chapter 6.060 of 

the Code of State Regulations (CSR) (10 

CSR 10–6.060) ‘‘Construction Permits 

Required’’ to implement certain 

elements of the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ rule (75 FR 64864, October 20, 

2010). In addition, this rule amendment 

defers the application of PSD permitting 

requirements to carbon dioxide 

emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic stationary sources. 

EPA received the fourth submission 

on August 8, 2012. This submission 

addresses the conflict of interest 

provisions in section 128 of the CAA as 

it relates to infrastructure SIPs described 

in element E below. 

II. What is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

infrastructure SIP? 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, 

in part, that states make a SIP 

submission to EPA to implement, 

maintain and enforce each of the 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA after 

reasonable notice and public hearings. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that such 

infrastructure SIP submissions must 

address. SIPs meeting the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be 

submitted by states within three years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. These SIPs submissions are 

commonly referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. 

III. What elements are applicable under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued 

guidance to address infrastructure SIP 

elements required under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.1 On 

September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to address infrastructure SIP 

elements required under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS.2 EPA will address these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21283 

Standards, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ Memorandum to 

EPA Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, 

September 25, 2009 (2009 Memo). 

3Section 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). 

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 3; (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. 

IV. What is the scope of this rulemaking 

as it relates to infrastructure SIPs? 

The applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements are contained in sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. EPA is 

proposing action on each of the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

through section 110(a)(2)(M), as 

applicable, except for the elements 

detailed in the following paragraphs. 

This rulemaking will not cover four 

substantive issues that are not integral 

to acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, 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 purport to permit 

revisions to SIP approved emissions 

limits with limited public process or 

without requiring further approval by 

EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA 

(‘‘director’s discretion’’); (iii) existing 

provisions for minor source New Source 

Review (NSR) programs that may be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and EPA’s regulations that 

pertain to such programs (‘‘minor source 

NSR’’); and, (iv) existing provisions for 

PSD programs that may be inconsistent 

with current requirements of EPA’s 

December 31, 2002, ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule’’ (67 FR 80186), as 

amended by the ‘‘NSR Reform’’ final 

rulemaking on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 

32526). Instead, EPA has indicated that 

it has other authority to address any 

such existing SIP defects in other 

rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed 

rationale for why these four substantive 

issues are not part of the scope of 

infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be 

found at 76 FR 41075, 41076–41079 

(July 13, 2011). See also 77 FR 38239, 

38240–38243 (June 27, 2012); and 77 FR 

46361, 46362–46365 (August 3, 2012). 

In addition to the four substantive 

areas above, EPA is not acting in this 

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). A detailed rationale for not 

acting on elements of these 

requirements is discussed within each 

applicable section of this rulemaking. 

As described above in section I, EPA is 

also not acting on portions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Interstate and 

international transport as final actions 

have already been taken on portions of 

this element for both the Missouri 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

submissions. 

Finally, as part of this action, EPA is 

evaluating the state’s compliance with 

the new PSD requirements promulgated 

in the ‘‘Implementation of New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5).’’ (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) 

and the PM2.5 Increment, SILs and SMC 

rule (75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). 

Regarding the May 16, 2008 rule, on 

January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals in the District of Columbia, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a 

judgment that remanded two of EPA’s 

rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, including the 2008 rule. The 

Court ordered EPA to ‘‘repromulgate 

these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 

consistent with this opinion.’’ Id. at 437. 

Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1 of the CAA 

establishes additional provisions for 

particulate matter nonattainment areas. 

The 2008 implementation rule 

addressed by the Court’s decision 

promulgated NSR requirements for 

implementation of PM2.5 in both 

nonattainment areas (nonattainment 

NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable 

areas (PSD). As the requirements of 

subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment 

areas, EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 attainment and 

unclassifiable areas to be affected by the 

Court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any 

PSD requirements promulgated in the 

2008 rule in order to comply with the 

Court’s decision. Accordingly, EPA’s 

approval of Missouri’s infrastructure SIP 

as to Elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), 

with respect to the PSD requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

implementation rule, does not conflict 

with the Court’s opinion. 

The Court’s decision with respect to 

the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s action on the present 

infrastructure SIP submission. As 

described above, EPA interprets the Act 

to exclude nonattainment area 

requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR 

program, from infrastructure SIP 

submissions due three years after 

adoption or revision of a NAAQS. 

Instead, these elements are typically 

referred to as nonattainment SIP or 

attainment plan elements, which states 

must submit by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under part D within subparts 

2 through 5, extending as far as ten 

years following designations for some 

elements. Given these separate 

applicable SIP submission dates, EPA 

concludes that these specific 

requirements are outside the scope of 

the infrastructure SIPs. 

V. What is EPA’s evaluation of how the 

state addressed the relevant elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new PM2.5 primary and secondary 

NAAQS (62 FR 38652). On October 17, 

2006, EPA made further revisions to the 

primary and secondary NAAQS for 

PM2.5 (71 FR 61144). On February 27, 

2007, EPA Region 7 received Missouri’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. EPA determined 

this SIP submission complete on March 

27, 2007. On December 28, 2009, EPA 

Region 7 received Missouri’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2006 PM2.5 standard. This SIP 

submission became complete as a matter 

of law on June 28, 2010. EPA has 

reviewed both of Missouri’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions and the 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions or referenced in 

Missouri’s SIP. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21284 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

4The 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 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 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. 

5For the reasons stated earlier, EPA is not 

addressing SSM and director’s discretion provisions 

in this rulemaking. 

6As 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. 

needed to implement, maintain and 

enforce each NAAQS.4

The State of Missouri’s Air 

Conservation Law and Air Pollution 

Control Rules authorize the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR) to regulate air quality and 

implement air quality control 

regulations. Specifically, Missouri 

Revised Statutes (RsMO) section 

643.030 authorizes the ‘‘Air 

Conservation Commission of the State of 

Missouri’’ (MACC) to control air 

pollution, which is defined in RsMO 

section 643.020 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. RsMO section 643.050 

authorizes the MACC to classify and 

identify air contaminants. 

Missouri’s rule 10 CSR 10–6.010 

‘‘Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ 

adopts the 1997 PM2.5 annual standard 

and the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour standard as 

promulgated by EPA. In addition, 10 

CSR 10–6.040 ‘‘Reference Methods’’ 

incorporates by reference the relevant 

appendices in 40 CFR part 50 for 

measuring and calculating the 

concentration of PM2.5 in the 

atmosphere to determine whether the 

standards have been met. Therefore, 

PM2.5 is an air contaminant which may 

be regulated under Missouri law. 

RsMO section 643.050 of the Air 

Conservation Law 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. Missouri also 

establishes timetables for compliance in 

its rules, as appropriate. Appendix A of 

the state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

for both the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS contains a link to 

the Missouri Air Conservation Law and 

Appendix B of each submission 

contains a link to Missouri’s state rules. 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions or referenced in 

Missouri’s SIP, EPA believes that 

Missouri has statutory and regulatory 

authority to establish additional 

emissions limitations and other 

measures, as necessary to address 

attainment and maintenance of the 

PM2.5 standards. Therefore, EPA 

believes that the Missouri SIP 

adequately addresses the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 5 and is proposing 

to approve the February 27, 2007, 

submission regarding the 1997 PM2.5

infrastructure SIP requirements and the 

December 28, 2009, submission 

regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this element. 

(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, RsMO 

section 643.050 of the Air Conservation 

Law 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. 

MDNR submits annual monitoring 

network plans to EPA for approval, 

including its PM2.5 monitoring network, 

as required by 40 CFR 58.10. Prior to 

submissions to EPA, Missouri makes the 

plans 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 

PM2.5 monitoring network, as required 

by 40 CFR 58.10(d). On January 10, 

2013, EPA approved Missouri’s 2012 

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Plan 

and on October 27, 2010, EPA approved 

Missouri’s Five-Year Air Monitoring 

Network Assessment. Missouri 10 CSR 

10–6.040(4)(L) ‘‘Reference Methods’’ 

requires that ambient concentrations of 

PM2.5 be measured in accordance with 

the applicable Federal regulations in 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix L, 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) system 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 submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions or referenced in 

Missouri’s SIP, EPA believes that the 

Missouri SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is 

proposing to approve the February 27, 

2007, submission regarding the 1997 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements 

and the December 28, 2009, submission 

regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this element. 

(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).6

(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, RsMO section 643.080 of 

the Air Conservation Law 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 includes permits under SIPapproved permitting programs). RsMO 

section 643.085 authorizes MDNR to 

assess administrative penalties for 

violations of the statute, regulations, 

permit conditions, or administrative 

orders. RsMO section 643.151 

authorizes the MACC to initiate civil 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21285 

7PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 

2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as 

‘‘coarse’’ particles. 

8 In addition to the NSPS for PM, it is noted that 

states regulated ‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ for 

many years in their SIPs for PM, and the same 

Continued 

actions for these violations, and to seek 

penalties and injunctive relief to 

prevent any further violation. RsMO 

section 643.191 provides for criminal 

penalties for known violations of the 

statute, standards, permit conditions, or 

regulations promulgated thereunder. 

(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 statewide minor sources (Missouri’s major 

source permitting program is discussed 

in (3) below), Missouri has a SIPapproved 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 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards 

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). 

EPA believes that a number of states 

may have minor NSR provisions that are 

contrary to the existing EPA regulations 

for this program. EPA intends to work 

with states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and EPA believes it may be 

time to revisit the regulatory 

requirements for this program to give 

the states an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design a program that 

meets their particular air quality 

concerns, while assuring reasonable 

consistency across the country in 

protecting the NAAQS with respect to 

new and modified minor sources. 

(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 for 

not just PM2.5, but for all other regulated 

NSR pollutants as well. To implement 

the PSD permitting component of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, states were 

required to submit the necessary SIP 

revisions to EPA by May 16, 2011, and 

July 20, 2012, pursuant to EPA’s NSR 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule (2008 NSR 

Rule), (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) and 

EPA’s PM2.5 Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, 

(75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). As 

described in section IV above, the 

January 4, 2013, court decision 

remanding 2008 rule does not impact 

the EPA’s action as to this element. 

The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several 

new requirements for SIPs to address 

sources that emit direct PM2.5 and other 

pollutants that contribute to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. One of these 

requirements is for NSR permits to 

address pollutants responsible for the 

secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise 

known as precursors. In the 2008 NSR 

Rule, the EPA identified precursors to 

PM2.5 for the PSD program to include 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide 

(NOX) (unless the state demonstrates to 

the Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). See 73 FR 28325. The 

2008 NSR Rule also specified that 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are 

not considered to be precursors to PM2.5

in the PSD program unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

emissions of VOCs in an area are 

significant contributors to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. The 

specific references to SO2, NOX, and 

VOCs as they pertain to secondary PM2.5

formation are currently codified at 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). The deadline for 

states to submit SIP revisions to their 

PSD programs incorporating these new 

requirements was May 16, 2011 (73 FR 

28341). 

As part of identifying pollutants that 

are precursors to PM2.5, the 2008 NSR 

Rule also revised the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ as it relates to a net 

emissions increase or the potential of a 

source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i) define ‘‘significant’’ for 

PM2.5 to mean the following emissions 

rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct 

PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). 

Another provision of the 2008 NSR 

Rule requires states to account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as condensables, for 

applicability determinations and in 

establishing emission limits for PM2.5

and PM107 in NSR permits. EPA 

provided that states were required to 

account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables beginning on or after 

January 1, 2011. This requirement is 

currently codified in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states’ 

PSD programs incorporating the 

inclusion of condensables were required 

to be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 

(73 FR at 28341). 

The definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ in the PSD provisions of the 

2008 rule inadvertently required states 

to also account for the condensable PM 

fraction with respect to one indicator of 

PM referred to as ‘‘particular matter 

emissions.’’ The term ‘‘particulate 

matter emissions’’ includes PM2.5 and 

PM10 particles as well as larger particles, 

and is an indicator for PM that has long 

been used for measuring PM under 

various New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 60).8 A 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21286 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

indicator has been used as a surrogate for 

determining compliance with certain standards 

contained in 40 CFR part 63, regarding National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

9The change finalized in that action does not 

mean that EPA has entirely exempted the inclusion 

of the condensable PM fraction as part of 

accounting for ‘‘particulate matter emissions.’’ It 

may be necessary for PSD sources to count the 

condensable PM fraction with regard to ‘‘particulate 

matter emissions’’ where either the applicable 

NSPS compliance test includes the condensable PM 

fraction or the applicable implementation plan 

requires the condensable PM fraction to be counted. 

See 77 FR 65112. 10http://www.epa.gov/NSR/actions.html#2010. 

similar provision addressing 

condensables was added to the 

Nonattainment NSR SIP provisions of 

the 2008 NSR Rule but does not include 

a requirement to account for 

‘‘particulate matter (PM) emissions’’ in 

all cases (40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D)). On October 12, 

2012, EPA finalized a rulemaking to 

amend the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ promulgated in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule regarding the PM 

condensable provision currently at 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a), 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(a), and EPA’s Emissions 

Offset Interpretative Ruling. See 77 FR 

65107. The rulemaking removes the 

inadvertent requirement in the 2008 

NSR Rule that the measurement of 

condensables be generally included as 

part of the measurement and regulation 

of ‘‘particulate matter emissions.’’ 9

On April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19602), EPA 

proposed to approve Missouri’s request 

to amend the SIP to meet the 2008 PM2.5

NAAQS implementation requirements 

of the May 16, 2008, NSR PM2.5 Rule as 

described above. In this SIP revision, 

Missouri adopted rule revisions to 

establish (1) the requirement for NSR 

permits to address directly emitted 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; and (2) 

significant emission rates for direct 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (SO2 and 

NOX), among other revisions. With 

respect to the condensable PM issue 

described above, Missouri has 

addressed this through the SIP 

submission received by EPA on 

September 5, 2012, and which is being 

proposed for approval in today’s action, 

as discussed in more detail below. 

Therefore, EPA has proposed to 

incorporate into Missouri’s SIP all of the 

provisions required by the 2008 PM2.5

implementation rule that are applicable 

to element C of infrastructure SIPs. 

With respect to the 2010 PM2.5

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, EPA is 

proposing to approve the portion of the 

September 5, 2012, submission 

addressing the required PM2.5

increments and associated 

implementing regulations as part of 

today’s proposed rulemaking. A further 

analysis of how Missouri meets the 

requirements of the 2010 rule is 

described below in sections VI and VII. 

To meet the requirements of element 

(C), in addition to the PM2.5 PSD 

elements that must be incorporated in to 

the SIP, each state’s PSD program must 

meet applicable requirements for all 

regulated pollutants in PSD permits. For 

example, if a state lacks provisions 

needed to address NOX as a precursor to 

ozone, the provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD 

permitting program for PM2.5 will not be 

considered to be met. 

Relating to ozone, EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule 

to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule to 

Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 

Amendments Relating to New Source 

Review and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon 

Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and 

Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule), 

was published on November 8, 2005 (70 

FR 71612). Among other requirements, 

the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to 

revise their PSD programs to explicitly 

identify NOX as a precursor to ozone (70 

FR 71612 at 71679, and 71699–71700). 

This requirement is currently codified 

in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b). On April 

16, 2012, EPA finalized a rulemaking to 

approve the provisions into the 

Missouri SIP which provide that ozone 

precursors (volatile organic 

compounds—VOC and nitrogen 

oxides—NOX) are regulated. See 77 FR 

22500. For example, a source that is 

major for NOX is also major for ozone 

under the state’s PSD program in rule 10 

CSR 10–6.060(8). In addition, rules 10 

CSR 10–6.060(1)(A) and 10–6.060(8)(A) 

incorporate 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a) by 

reference. The latter regulation 

specifically identifies volatile organic 

compounds and nitrogen oxides as 

precursors to ozone in all attainment 

and unclassifiable areas. 

Regarding greenhouse gases (GHG), on 

June 3, 2010, EPA issued a final rule 

establishing a ‘‘common sense’’ 

approach to addressing GHG emissions 

from stationary sources under the CAA 

permitting programs. The ‘‘Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,’’ or 

‘‘Tailoring Rule,’’ set thresholds for 

GHG emissions that define when 

permits under the NSR PSD and Title V 

operating permit programs are required 

for new and existing industrial facilities. 

See 75 FR 31514. Without the new 

threshold provided by the Tailoring 

Rule, sources with GHG emissions 

above the statutory thresholds (of 100 or 

250 tons per year) would be subject to 

PSD, which could have potentially 

resulted in apartment complexes, strip 

malls, small farms, restaurants, etc. 

triggering GHG PSD requirements. 

On December 23, 2010, EPA 

promulgated a subsequent series of rules 

that put the necessary framework in 

place to ensure that industrial facilities 

can get CAA permits covering their GHG 

emissions when needed, and that 

facilities emitting GHGs at levels below 

those established in the Tailoring Rule 

need not obtain CAA permits.10

Included in this series of rules was 

EPA’s issuance of the ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans,’’ referred to 

as the PSD SIP ‘‘Narrowing Rule’’ (75 FR 

82536, December 30, 2010). The 

Narrowing Rule limits, or ‘‘narrows,’’ 

EPA’s approval of PSD programs 

applied to previously EPA-approved SIP 

PSD programs, including Missouri’s, 

that apply PSD to GHG emissions. The 

Narrowing Rule limited, or ‘‘narrowed,’’ 

EPA’s approval of Missouri’s and other 

PSD programs so that the SIP provisions 

that apply PSD to GHG emissions 

increases from sources emitting GHG 

below the Tailoring Rule thresholds 

were no longer EPA approved, and 

instead, had the status of having been 

submitted by the state but not yet acted 

upon by EPA. In other words, the 

Narrowing Rule focused on eliminating 

the PSD obligations under Federal law 

for sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. 

After EPA adopted the Narrowing 

Rule, Missouri submitted to EPA, and 

EPA approved in to the Missouri SIP on 

April 16, 2012, a revision that limited 

PSD applicability to GHG-emitting 

sources at or above the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. With this SIP revision, 

Missouri’s PSD program conforms to 

EPA’s requirements for PSD programs 

with respect to GHG emissions, and 

avoids an overwhelming increase in the 

number of required permits and 

resulting burden on Missouri’s 

permitting resources (77 FR 22500, 

April 16, 2012). 

Based upon review of the State’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

September 5, 2012, submission 

regarding PSD requirements, and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions or referenced in 

Missouri’s SIP, with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 1997 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21287 

11William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ Memorandum to 

EPA Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, 

September 25, 2009. 

12Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and 

EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval 

results in approval of the entire SIP submission, 

even of those parts that are deficient and prevent 

EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP 

revision. Processing of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA 

Regional Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 

Calcagni Memorandum) located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

the February 27, 2007, submission 

regarding the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure 

SIP requirements, the December 28, 

2009, submission regarding the 2006 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements, 

and the September 5, 2012, submission 

regarding the PSD requirements. EPA’s 

analysis of the September 5, 2012, 

submission is provided in sections VI 

and VII below. 

(D) Interstate and international 

transport: 

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. Furthermore, 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. 

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). 

In this notice, we are not proposing to 

take any actions related to the interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2. At 

this time, there is no SIP submission 

from Missouri relating to 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 or 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS pending before the 

Agency. EPA previously approved the 

provisions of the Missouri SIP 

submission addressing the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), with 

respect to the 1997 PM2.5 standards, into 

the Missouri SIP (72 FR 25975, May 8, 

2007). EPA also disapproved the portion 

of the Missouri SIP submission intended 

to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (76 

FR 43156, July 20, 2011). 

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 the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS have been detailed in the 

section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). 

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). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve the PSD 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3. 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4, 

states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the CAA (which 

includes sections 169A and 169B). The 

2009 Memo 11 states that these 

requirements can be satisfied by an 

approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, if 

required, and an approved SIP 

addressing regional haze. 

Missouri meets this requirement 

through EPA-approved provisions 

requiring electric generating units 

(EGUs) in Missouri to comply with the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 

through the limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Missouri’s 

regional haze SIP. Although Missouri’s 

regional haze SIP has not been fully 

approved, EPA believes that the 

infrastructure SIP submission together 

with previously approved SIP 

provisions, specifically those provisions 

that require EGUs to comply with CAIR 

and the additional measures in the 

regional haze SIP addressing best 

available retrofit technology (BART) and 

reasonable progress requirements for 

other sources or pollutants, are adequate 

to demonstrate compliance with prong 

4; thus, EPA is proposing to fully 

approve this aspect of the submission. 

Missouri’s regional haze SIP relied on 

the previous incorporation of CAIR into 

the EPA-approved SIP for Missouri as 

an alternative to the requirement that 

regional haze SIPs provide for sourcespecific BART emission limits for SO2

and NOX emissions from EGUs. At the 

time the regional haze SIP was being 

developed, Missouri’s reliance on CAIR 

was fully consistent with EPA’s 

regulations. CAIR, as originally 

promulgated, requires significant 

reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX

to limit the interstate transport of these 

pollutants, and EPA’s determination 

that states could rely on CAIR as an 

alternative to requiring BART for CAIRsubject EGUs had specifically been 

upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

Moreover, the states with Class I areas 

affected by emissions from sources in 

Missouri had adopted reasonable 

progress goals for visibility protection 

that were consistent with the EGU 

emission limits resulting from CAIR. 

In 2008, however, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded CAIR back to EPA (see North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008)). The Court found CAIR to be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA (see North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), but 

ultimately remanded the rule to EPA 

without vacatur because it found that 

‘‘allowing CAIR to remain in effect until 

it is replaced by a rule consistent with 

[the Court’s] opinion would at least 

temporarily preserve the environmental 

values covered by CAIR’’ (North 

Carolina, 550 F.3d at 1178). 

After the remand of CAIR by the D.C. 

Circuit and the promulgation by EPA of 

a new rule—Cross State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR)—to replace CAIR, EPA 

issued a limited disapproval and 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for 

Missouri regional haze SIP (and other 

states’ regional haze SIPs that relied 

similarly on CAIR), which merely 

substituted reliance on CSAPR NOX and 

SO2 trading programs for EGUs for the 

SIP’s reliance on CAIR because EPA 

believed that full approval of the SIP 

was not appropriate in light of the 

court’s remand of CAIR and the 

uncertain but limited remaining period 

of operation of CAIR (77 FR 33642, June 

7, 2012). EPA finalized a limited 

approval of the regional haze SIP, 

indicating that except for its reliance on 

CAIR, the SIP met CAA requirements for 

the first planning period of the regional 

haze program (77 FR 38007, June 26, 

2012).12

Since the above-described 

developments with regard to Missouri’s 

regional haze SIP, the situation has 

changed. In August 2012, the D.C. 

Circuit issued a decision to vacate 

CSAPR (see EME Homer City v. EPA, 

696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In this 

decision, the Court ordered EPA to 

‘‘continue administering CAIR pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ Thus, EPA has been 

ordered by the Court to develop a new 

rule, and to continue implementing 

CAIR in the meantime, and the opinion 

makes clear that after promulgating that 

new rule EPA must provide states an 

opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to 

implement that rule. CAIR thus cannot 

be replaced until EPA has promulgated 

a final rule through a notice-andcomment rulemaking process; states 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21288 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

13See Memorandum from David O. Bickart to 

Regional Air Directors, ‘‘Guidance to States for 

Meeting Conflict of Interest Requirements of 

Section 128,’’ Suggested Definitions, March 2, 1978. 

have had an opportunity to draft and 

submit SIPs; EPA has reviewed the SIPs 

to determine if they can be approved; 

and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, 

including promulgating a FIP, if 

appropriate. 

EPA filed a petition for rehearing of 

the Court’s decision on CSAPR, which 

was denied by the D.C. Circuit on 

January 24, 2013. However, based on the 

current direction from the Court to 

continue administering CAIR, EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to rely on 

CAIR emission reductions as permanent 

and enforceable for purposes of 

assessing the adequacy of Missouri’s 

infrastructure SIP with respect to prong 

4 while a valid replacement rule is 

developed and until implementation 

plans complying with any new rule are 

submitted by the states and acted upon 

by EPA or until the court case is 

resolved in a way that provides 

direction regarding CAIR and CSAPR. 

As neither Missouri nor EPA has 

taken any action to remove CAIR from 

the Missouri SIP, CAIR remains part of 

the EPA-approved SIP and can be 

considered in determining whether the 

SIP as a whole meets the requirement of 

prong 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA is 

proposing to approve the infrastructure 

SIP submission with respect to prong 4 

because Missouri’s regional haze SIP 

which EPA has given a limited 

approval, in combination with its SIP 

provisions to implement CAIR, 

adequately prevent sources in Missouri 

from interfering with measures adopted 

by other states to protect visibility 

during the first planning period. While 

EPA is not at this time proposing to 

change the June 7, 2012, or June 26, 

2012, limited disapproval and limited 

approval of Missouri’s regional haze 

SIP, EPA expects to propose an 

appropriate action regarding Missouri’s 

regional haze SIP upon final resolution 

of EME Homer City. 

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 submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions 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 3 and 4 and 

110 (a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

approve the February 27, 2007, 

submission regarding the 1997 PM2.5

infrastructure SIP requirements and the 

December 28, 2009, submission 

regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this element. 

(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 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 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 these NAAQS. 

With respect to adequate resources, 

MDNR asserts that it has adequate 

personnel to implement the SIP. The 

infrastructure SIP submission for both 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 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. RsMO 

section 643.079 of the Air Conservation 

Law 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. 

(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. In 1978, EPA issued 

a guidance memorandum 

recommending ways that states could 

meet the requirements of section 128, 

including suggested interpretations of 

certain terms in section 128.13 EPA has 

not issued further guidance or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21289 

regulations of general applicability on 

the subject since that time. However, 

EPA has recently proposed certain 

interpretations of section 128 as part of 

its actions on other infrastructure SIPs 

consistent with the statutory 

requirements (see, e.g., (77 FR 44555, 

July 30, 2012) and (77 FR 66398, 

November 5, 2012)). We are now 

proposing these same interpretations in 

relation to the Missouri SIP. On August 

8, 2012, EPA received Missouri’s SIP 

revision that addresses the section 128 

requirements. In today’s action, we are 

also proposing to approve Missouri’s 

August 8, 2012, submission related to 

sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 of the 

CAA. EPA and Missouri have worked to 

assure that the State’s SIP correctly 

addresses these requirements. 

EPA’s analysis consisted of review of 

Missouri’s August 8, 2012, SIP 

submission and EPA’s additional review 

of Missouri statutes and authorities. The 

first step in the analysis included 

identifying boards, bodies and persons 

responsible for approving permits and 

enforcement orders and determining the 

applicability of the section 128 

requirements to these entities. Section 

643.050 of the Air Conservation Law 

authorizes the MACC to approve 

enforcement orders. In addition, 

Missouri Chapter 1 rule ‘‘General 

Organization’’ (2)(B) gives the Director 

of MDNR the authority to issue orders 

and act upon permit applications. 

Therefore, at a minimum the MACC 

must satisfy the requirements of 

sections 128(a)(1) and (2), and as the 

head of an executive agency with 

similar powers, the Director of MDNR 

must satisfy the requirements of section 

128(a)(2). 

Section 128(a)(1) contains two 

separate requirements applicable to any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

First, a majority of members of the board 

or body must ‘‘represent the public 

interest’’ (‘‘public interest’’ 

requirement). Second, a majority of 

members must ‘‘not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders’’ (‘‘significant 

income’’ requirement). The specific 

provisions of Missouri’s Air 

Conservation Law submitted as SIP 

revisions are relevant to the 

requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1). 

With respect to the ‘‘public interest’’ 

requirement, section 643.040.2 of the 

Air Conservation Law establishes that 

the MACC members must ‘‘be 

representative of the general interest of 

the public.’’ With respect to the 

‘‘significant income’’ requirement, both 

sections 643.040.2 and 105.450 of 

Missouri’s Air Conservation Law were 

submitted to EPA for inclusion in the 

SIP. Section 643.040.2 states that ‘‘the 

governor shall not appoint any other 

person who has a substantial interest as 

defined in 105.450’’ in any business 

entity regulated under the Air 

Conservation Law or any business entity 

which would be regulated under the Air 

Conservation Law if located in Missouri. 

‘‘Substantial interest,’’ in turn, is 

defined in section 105.450 as ownership 

by the individual, the individual’s 

spouse, or the individual’s dependent 

children, whether singularly or 

collectively, directly or indirectly, of ten 

percent or more of any business entity, 

or of an interest having a value of ten 

thousand dollars or more, or the receipt 

by an individual, the individual’s 

spouse or the individual’s dependent 

children, whether singularly or 

collectively, of a salary, gratuity, or 

other compensation or remuneration of 

five thousand dollars, or more, per year 

from any individual, partnership, 

organization, or association with any 

calendar year. The provisions at 

sections 643.040 and 105.450 have both 

been submitted for inclusion in to the 

SIP. In addition, section 105.463 which 

has also been submitted for inclusion in 

to the SIP, requires members of the 

commission to file a financial interest 

statement. 

To satisfy section 128(a)(2) of the 

CAA, Missouri’s August 8, 2012, 

submission identified RsMO section 

643.040.2, which establishes ‘‘rules of 

procedure which specify when members 

shall exempt themselves from 

participating in discussions and from 

voting on issues before the commission 

due to potential conflict of interest.’’ In 

addition, RsMO sections 105.452 and 

105.454 identify ‘‘prohibited acts’’ that 

apply to both elected or appointed 

officials and to state employees which 

relate to disclosure of conflicts of 

interest and financial gain. As an 

example of a ‘‘prohibited act,’’ elected 

or appointed officials or employees of 

Missouri shall not act (or refrain from 

acting in any capacity in which she is 

lawfully empowered to act) ‘‘by reason 

of any payment, offer to pay, promise to 

pay, or receipt of anything of actual 

pecuniary value’’ paid or received to 

herself or any third person in 

relationship to or as a condition of the 

performance of an official act (RsMO 

105.452.1(1)). These officials or 

employees are also prohibited from 

using or disclosing confidential 

information obtained in the course of or 

by reason of her employment or official 

capacity in any manner with intent to 

result in financial gain for herself, her 

spouse, her dependent child, or any 

business with which she is associated 

(RsMO 105.452.1(2),(3)). 

Chapter 1 Missouri State regulation 

‘‘Commission Voting and Meeting 

Procedures’’ (1) and (2) also further 

require disclosure of conflicts of interest 

and require members with conflicts of 

interest to be excluded from voting on 

the matter at issue, unless that member 

receives a determination from the 

MACC that the interest is ‘‘not so 

substantial as to be deemed likely to 

affect the integrity of the services which 

the state expects from commission 

members.’’ Finally, RsMO sections 

105.466 and 105.472 include applicable 

exemptions to the ‘‘prohibited acts’’ 

identified in RsMO sections 105.450 to 

105.458 and 105.462 to 105.468 and 

information regarding complaints about 

any violations of these prohibitions 

related to boards and executives. All of 

these provisions have been submitted by 

Missouri for inclusion in to the SIP. 

As it relates to appointed public 

officials, such as the Director of MDNR, 

the provisions as described above in 

sections 105.452 and 105.454 also apply 

to heads of the executive agency. 

EPA believes that the above identified 

relevant sections of Missouri’s Air 

Conservation Law and the Missouri air 

regulations directly address the 

provisions related to sections 128(a)(1) 

and (2) of the CAA. We propose to 

approve the following provisions in to 

the Missouri SIP, as they strengthen the 

SIP with respect to the conflict of 

interest requirement of CAA section 

128: 

• RsMO 643.040.2 

• RsMO 105.450 

• RsMO 105.452 

• RsMO 105.454 

• RsMO 105.462 

• RsMO 105.463 

• RsMO 105.466 

• RsMO 105.472 

• 10 CSR 10–1.020(1) and (2) 

(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 

portions of the plan, RsMO section 

643.190 designates the MDNR as the air 

pollution control agency ‘‘for all 

purposes’’ of the CAA. Although RsMO 

section 643.140 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 

(RsMO 643.140.4). The MACC may also 

suspend or repeal the granting of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21290 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

authority if the local government is 

enforcing any local rules in a manner 

inconsistent with state law (RsMO 

643.140.10). 

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 submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

August 8, 2012, SIP submission, and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions or referenced in 

Missouri’s SIP, EPA believes that 

Missouri has the adequate infrastructure 

needed to address section 110(a)(2)(E) 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and is proposing to approve the 

February 27, 2007, submission regarding 

the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

requirements, the December 28, 2009, 

submission regarding the 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure SIP requirements, and the 

August 8, 2012, submission relating to 

section 128 requirements. 

(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, RsMO 

section 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. 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 PM emissions. The Federal 

test methods are in 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix M and part 60, Appendix A. 

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) ‘‘Reporting & Emission Data, 

Emission Fees, and Process 

Information’’). 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 submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions or referenced in 

Missouri’s SIP, EPA believes that 

Missouri has the adequate infrastructure 

needed to address section 110(a)(2)(F) 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and is proposing to approve the 

February 27, 2007, submission regarding 

the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

requirements and the December 28, 

2009, submission regarding the 2006 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements 

for this element. 

(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. 

RsMO section 643.090.1 of the Air 

Conservation Law 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, RsMO section 

643.090.2 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, and such activity or 

discharge presents a clear and present 

danger to public health or welfare. 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.130 

‘‘Controlling Emissions During Episodes 

of High Air Pollution Potential’’ 

includes action levels and contingency 

measures for PM2.5 and other pollutants. 

This rule specifies the conditions that 

establish an air pollution alert and the 

associated procedures and emissions 

reduction objectives for dealing with 

each. 

With respect to contingency plan 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G), 

EPA has issued guidance making 

recommendations for how states may 

elect to approach this issue. In that 

guidance, EPA recommended that, 

where a state can demonstrate that PM2.5

levels have remained below 140.4 

micrograms per cubic meter, the state is 

not required to develop a contingency 

plan to satisfy element (G). EPA believes 

that this is a reasonable interpretation of 

the statute and addresses the PM2.5

NAAQS in a way analogous to other 

NAAQS pollutants. PM2.5 monitoring 

data from monitors across the state have 

shown that 24-hour PM2.5 values have 

never exceeded 140.4 micrograms per 

cubic meter in Missouri. Therefore, 

Missouri is not required to develop a 

contingency plan for PM2.5 at this time. 

That said, Missouri’s regulations 

provide for contingency plans (or alert 

plans) to be implemented if an area’s 

Air Quality Alert value exceeds 200 

micrograms per cubic meter. These 

plans must include provisions for 

reducing emissions, such as curtailing 

production processes, diverting power 

generation to facilities outside of the 

alert area, and stoppage of waste 

disposal practices or open burning. 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.130(3)(D)4 

‘‘Controlling Emissions During Episodes 

of High Air Pollution Potential.’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21291 

Based on a review of these regulatory 

requirements (which have previously 

been approved by EPA as part of 

Missouri’s SIP (see 50 FR 41348), and a 

comparison of it to the requirements in 

40 CFR 51.150–51.153, EPA believes 

that the Missouri SIP adequately 

addresses section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and is 

proposing to approve the February 27, 

2007, submission regarding the 1997 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements 

and the December 28, 2009, submission 

regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this element. 

(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 

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 RsMO section 

643.050 of the Air Conservation Law, 

discussed previously in element (A), 

section 643.055.1 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 Chapter 1 state 

rule ‘‘General Organization’’ (2) 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 submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions or referenced in 

Missouri’s SIP, EPA believes that 

Missouri has adequate authority to 

address section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and is 

proposing to approve the February 27, 

2007, submission regarding the 1997 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements 

and the December 28, 2009, submission 

regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this element. 

(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 generalpurpose 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 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 elevated PM2.5 and other 

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, we note in section VII of this 

rulemaking how 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. Missouri has submitted a SIP 

revision to satisfy the requirements of 

CAA sections 169A and 169B, and the 

regional haze and BART rules contained 

in 40 CFR 51.308. On June 7, 2012, EPA 

published a final rulemaking regarding 

Missouri’s regional haze program 

consisting of a limited disapproval and 

FIP (see 77 FR 33642). In addition, on 

June 26, 2012, EPA published a final 

rulemaking regarding Missouri’s 

regional haze program consisting of a 

limited approval (see 77 FR 38007). In 

EPA’s view, the current status of 

Missouri’s regional haze SIP as having 

not been fully approved is not a bar to 

full approval of the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to the visibility 

protection aspect of 110(a)(2)(J), and 

EPA is proposing to fully approve the 

infrastructure SIP for this aspect. While 

EPA is not at this time proposing to 

change the June 26, 2012, limited 

approval or the June 7, 2012, limited 

disapproval of Missouri’s regional haze 

SIP itself, EPA expects to address the 

approval status of the regional haze SIP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21292 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

upon final resolution of EME Homer 

City. 

Based upon review of the State’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions or referenced in 

Missouri’s SIP, EPA believes that 

Missouri has met the applicable 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

state and is therefore proposing to 

approve the February 27, 2007, 

submission regarding the 1997 PM2.5

infrastructure SIP requirements and the 

December 28, 2009, submission 

regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this element. 

(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. Along with 

section 643.055, which 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, EPA believes MDNR has the 

authority to conduct modeling to 

address NAAQS issues. As an example 

of regulatory authority to perform 

modeling for purposes of determining 

NAAQS compliance, 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 

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 submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions or referenced in 

Missouri’s SIP, EPA believes that 

Missouri has the adequate infrastructure 

needed to address section 110(a)(2)(K) 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and is proposing to approve the 

February 27, 2007, submission regarding 

the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

requirements and the December 28, 

2009, submission regarding the 2006 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements 

for this element. 

(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). EPA is reviewing 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. 

Therefore, EPA believes that the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) are 

met and is proposing to approve the 

February 27, 2007, submission regarding 

the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

requirements and the December 28, 

2009, submission regarding the 2006 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements 

for this element. 

(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. 

Section 643.050.3 of the Air 

Conservation Law 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. RsMO section 

643.140 provides the mechanism for 

local political subdivisions to enact and 

enforce their own air pollution control 

regulations, subject to the oversight of 

the MACC. 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 submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions or referenced in 

Missouri’s SIP, EPA believes that 

Missouri has the adequate infrastructure 

needed to address section 110(a)(2)(M) 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and is proposing to approve the 

February 27, 2007, submission regarding 

the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

requirements and the December 28, 

2009, submission regarding the 2006 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements 

for this element. 

VI. What are the requirements of the 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC rule for 

PSD SIP programs? 

The 2010 PM2.5 Increment-SILs-SMC 

Rule provided additional regulatory 

requirements under the PSD SIP 

program regarding the implementation 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 64864). As 

a result, the rule required states to 

submit SIP revisions to adopt the 

required PSD increments by July 20, 

2012 (75 FR 64864). Specifically, the 

rule required a state’s submitted PSD 

SIP revision to adopt and submit for 

EPA approval the PM2.5 increments 

pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in areas meeting the NAAQS. 

That rule also permitted states, at 

their discretion, to choose to adopt and 

submit for EPA approval into the SIP 

SILs, used as a screening tool (by a 

major source subject to PSD), to evaluate 

the impact a proposed major source or 

modification may have on the NAAQS 

or PSD increment; and a SMC (also a 

screening tool), used by a major source 

subject to PSD to determine the 

subsequent level of data gathering 

required for a PSD permit application 

for emissions of PM2.5. More detail on 

the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

can be found at 75 FR 64864. In regards 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21293 

14Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the 

baseline concentration of a pollutant for a particular 

baseline area is generally the same air quality at the 

time of the first application for a PSD permit in the 

area. 

15Baseline dates are pollutant specific. That is, a 

complete PSD application establishes the baseline 

date only for those regulated NSR pollutants that 

are projected to be emitted in significant amounts 

(as defined in the regulations) by the applicant’s 

new source or modification. Thus, an area may have 

different baseline dates for different pollutants. 

16EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS 

as a NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did 

not replace the PM10 NAAQs with the NAAQS for 

PM2.5 when the PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 

1997. Rather, EPA retained the annual and 24-hour 

NAAQS for PM10 as if PM2.5 was a new pollutant 

even though EPA had already developed air quality 

criteria for PM generally. 75 FR 64864. 

17EPA interprets 166(a) to authorize EPA to 

promulgate pollutant-specific PSD regulations 

meeting the requirements of section 166(c) and 

166(d) for any pollutant for which EPA promulgates 

a NAAQS after 1977. 

to the SILs and SMC provisions of the 

2010 PM2.5 rule, on January 22, 2013, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 

10–1413 (filed Dec. 17. 2010), issued a 

judgment that, inter alia, vacated and 

remanded the provisions concerning 

implementation of the PM2.5 SILs and 

vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5

SMC that were promulgated as part of 

the 2010 PM2.5 PSD Rule. 

Accordingly, the only remaining 

requirements from the 2010 rule are the 

PM2.5 increment and associated 

provisions discussed below. Under 

section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a PSD 

permit applicant must demonstrate that 

emissions from the proposed 

construction and operation of a facility 

‘‘will not cause, or contribute to, air 

pollution in excess of any maximum 

allowable increase or allowable 

concentration for any pollutant.’’ In 

other words, when a source applies for 

a PSD SIP permit to emit a regulated 

pollutant in an attainment or 

unclassifiable area, the permitting 

authority implementing the PSD SIP 

must determine if emissions of the 

regulated pollutant from the source will 

cause significant deterioration in air 

quality. Significant deterioration occurs 

when the amount of the new pollution 

exceeds the applicable PSD increment, 

which is the ‘‘maximum allowable 

increase’’ of an air pollutant allowed to 

occur above the applicable baseline 

concentration 14 for that pollutant. PSD 

increments prevent air quality in 

attainment and unclassifiable areas from 

deteriorating up to or beyond the level 

set by the NAAQS. Therefore, an 

increment is the mechanism used to 

estimate ‘‘significant deterioration’’ of 

air quality for a pollutant in an area. 

For PSD baseline purposes, a baseline 

area for a particular pollutant emitted 

from a source includes the attainment or 

unclassifiable/attainment area in which 

the source is located, as well as any 

other attainment or unclassifiable/ 

attainment area in which the source’s 

emissions of that pollutant are projected 

(by air quality modeling) to result in an 

ambient pollutant increase of at least 1 

ug/m3 (annual average) (40 CFR 

51.166(b)(15)(i) and (ii)). Under EPA’s 

existing regulations, the establishment 

of a baseline area for any PSD increment 

results from the submission of the first 

complete PSD permit application after a 

trigger date (which for PM2.5 is defined 

as October 20, 2011, by regulation) and 

is based on the location of the proposed 

source and its emissions impact on the 

area. Once the baseline area is 

established, subsequent PSD sources 

locating in that area must consider that 

a portion of the available increment may 

have already been consumed by 

previous emissions increases. In 

general, the submittal date of the first 

complete PSD permit application in a 

particular area is the operative ‘‘baseline 

date.’’ 15 On or before the date of the 

first complete PSD application, 

emissions generally are considered to be 

part of the baseline concentration, 

except for certain emissions from major 

stationary sources. Most emissions 

increases that occur after the baseline 

date will be counted toward the amount 

of increment consumed. Similarly, 

emissions decreases after the baseline 

date restore or expand the amount of 

increment that is available (see 75 FR 

64864). As described in the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC rule, pursuant to 

the authority under section 166(a) of the 

CAA, EPA promulgated numerical 

increments for PM2.5 as a new 

pollutant 16 for which the NAAQS were 

established after August 7, 1977,17 and 

derived 24-hour and annual PM2.5

increments for the three area 

classifications (Class I, II and III) using 

the ‘‘contingent safe harbor’’ approach 

(75 FR at 64869, and table at 40 CFR 

51.166(c)(1)). 

In addition to PSD increments for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC rule amended the 

definition at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 

52.21 for ‘‘major source baseline date’’ 

and ‘‘minor source baseline date’’ to 

establish the PM2.5 NAAQS specific 

dates (including trigger dates) associated 

with the implementation of PM2.5 PSD 

increments. See the PSD IncrementSILs-SMC rule for a more detailed 

discussion on the amendments to these 

definitions (75 FR 64864). In accordance 

with section 166(b) of the CAA, EPA 

required the states to submit revised 

implementation plans adopting the 

PM2.5 PSD increments to EPA for 

approval within twenty one months 

from promulgation of the final rule (i.e., 

by July 20, 2012). Each state was 

responsible for determining how 

increment consumption and the setting 

of the minor source baseline date for 

PM2.5 would occur under its own PSD 

program. Regardless of when a state 

begins to require PM2.5 increment 

analysis and how it chooses to set the 

PM2.5 minor source baseline date, the 

emissions from sources subject to PSD 

for PM2.5 for which construction 

commenced after October 20, 2010 

(major source baseline date) consume 

the PM2.5 increment and therefore 

should be included in the increment 

analyses occurring after the minor 

source baseline date is established for 

an area under the state’s revised PSD 

SIP program. 

VII. How does the September 5, 2012 

Missouri PSD submission satisfy the 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule? 

To address the requirements of EPA’s 

October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD IncrementSILs-SMC Rule, Missouri submitted a 

SIP revision received by EPA on 

September 5, 2012, which updated its 

PSD rules to establish the allowable 

PM2.5 increments, the optional screening 

tools (SILs), and significant monitoring 

concentrations (SMCs). On March 19, 

2013, Missouri amended and clarified 

its submission so that it was no longer 

intending to include specific provisions 

relating to the SILs and SMC affected by 

the January 22, 2013, court decision 

referenced above. Therefore, in today’s 

action, EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of the SIP revision which adopt 

PSD increments for the PM2.5 annual 

and 24-hour NAAQS pursuant to 

section 166(a) of the CAA only. Our 

analysis of the SIP revision follows. 

Specifically, regarding the PSD 

increments, the submitted SIP revision 

changes include: (1) The PM2.5

increments as promulgated at 40 CFR 

51.166(c)(1) and (p)(4) (for Class I 

variances) and (2) amendments to the 

terms ‘‘major source baseline date’’ (at 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c)) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(14)(i)(c)), ‘‘minor source 

baseline date’’(including establishment 

of the ‘‘trigger date’’) and ‘‘baseline 

area’’ (as amended at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(15)(i) and (ii) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(15)(i)). In the September 5, 

2012, SIP revision, Missouri 

incorporates by reference into the SIP 

the particular definitions from 40 CFR 

part 51 as referenced above through July 

1, 2011. Missouri updated Table 1— 

Ambient Air Increment Table to adopt 

the increments as described above in 

Class I, II, and III areas. Missouri has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21294 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

also updated Table 2—Significant 

Monitoring Concentrations for PM2.5

and Table 4 Significant Levels for PM2.5.

As described under element C in 

section V of this rulemaking, states had 

an obligation to address condensable 

PM emissions as a part of the 2008 PM2.5

NSR implementation rule. In Missouri’s 

SIP submission from September 5, 2012, 

Missouri incorporated by reference 

EPA’s definition for regulated NSR 

pollutant (formerly at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(vi)), including the term 

‘‘particulate matter emissions,’’ as 

inadvertently promulgated in the 2008 

NSR Rule. EPA is, however, proposing 

to approve into the Missouri SIP the 

requirement that condensable PM be 

accounted for in applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 because it is more stringent than 

the Federal requirement. Missouri can 

choose to initiate further rulemaking to 

ensure consistency with Federal 

requirements. 

In today’s action, EPA is proposing to 

approve Missouri’s September 5, 2012, 

revision to address the PM2.5 PSD 

increment provisions promulgated in 

the PM2.5 PSD Increments SILs-SMC 

rule and the obligation to address 

condensable PM emissions as a part of 

the 2008 PM2.5 NSR implementation 

rule except as identified in Missouri’s 

letter where Missouri amended and 

clarified its submission so that it was no 

longer intending to include specific 

provisions relating to the SILs and SMC 

affected by the January 22, 2013, court 

decision referenced above. As noted in 

EPA’s April 16, 2012, final action on 

Missouri’s PSD program (77 FR 22500), 

provisions of the incorporated 2002 

NSR reform rule relating to the Clean 

Unit Exemption, Pollution Control 

Projects (PCPs), and exemption from the 

recordkeeping provisions for certain 

sources using the actual-to-projectedactual emissions projections test are not 

SIP approved because in 2005 the DC 

Circuit Court vacated portions of the 

rule pertaining to clean units, PCPs, and 

remanded portions of the rule regarding 

recordkeeping. In addition, EPA did not 

approve Missouri’s rule incorporating 

EPA’s 2007 revision of the definition of 

‘‘chemical processing plants’’ (the 

‘‘Ethanol Rule,’’) (72 FR 24060, May 1, 

2007) or EPA’s 2008 ‘‘fugitive emissions 

rule’’ (73 FR 77882, December 19, 2008). 

Otherwise, Missouri’s revisions also 

incorporate by reference the other 

provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect 

on July 1, 2011. 

VIII. What are the additional 

provisions of the September 5, 2012, 

SIP submission that EPA is proposing to 

take action on? 

Within Missouri’s September 5, 2012, 

SIP submission, Missouri amended rule 

10 CSR 10–6.060 ‘‘Construction Permits 

Required’’ to defer the application of the 

PSD permitting requirements to carbon 

dioxide emissions from bioenergy and 

other biogenic stationary sources 

pursuant to the July 20, 2011, EPA final 

rulemaking ‘‘Deferral for Carbon 

Dioxide (CO2) Emissions from Bioenergy 

and other Biogenic Sources Under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Title V Programs’’ (see 76 FR 

43490). The Biomass Deferral delays 

until July 21, 2014, the consideration of 

CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic sources (hereinafter referred to 

as ‘‘biogenic CO2 emissions’’) when 

determining whether a stationary source 

meets the PSD and Title V applicability 

thresholds, including those for the 

application of Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT). Stationary sources 

that combust biomass (or otherwise emit 

biogenic CO2 emissions) and construct 

or modify during the deferral period 

will avoid the application of PSD to the 

biogenic CO2 emissions resulting from 

those actions. The deferral applies only 

to biogenic CO2 emissions and does not 

affect non-GHG pollutants or other 

GHG’s (e.g., methane (CH4) and nitrous 

oxide (N2O)) emitted from the 

combustion of biomass fuel. Also, the 

deferral only pertains to biogenic CO2

emissions in the PSD and Title V 

programs and does not pertain to any 

other EPA programs such as the GHG 

Reporting Program. Biogenic CO2

emissions are defined as emissions of 

CO2 from a stationary source directly 

resulting from the combustion or 

decomposition of biologically-based 

materials other than fossil fuels and 

mineral sources of carbon. Examples of 

‘‘biogenic CO2 emissions’’ include, but 

are not limited to: 

• CO2 generated from the biological 

decomposition of waste in landfills, 

wastewater treatment or manure 

management processes; 

• CO2 from the combustion of biogas 

collected from biological decomposition 

of waste in landfills, wastewater 

treatment or manure management 

processes; 

• CO2 from fermentation during 

ethanol production or other industrial 

fermentation processes; 

• CO2 from combustion of the 

biological fraction of municipal solid 

waste or biosolids; 

• CO2 from combustion of the 

biological fraction of tire-derived fuel; 

and 

• CO2 derived from combustion of 

biological material, including all types 

of wood and wood waste, forest residue, 

and agricultural material. 

EPA recognizes that use of certain 

types of biomass can be part of the 

national strategy to reduce dependence 

on fossil fuels. Efforts are underway at 

the Federal, state and regional level to 

foster the expansion of renewable 

resources and promote bioenergy 

projects when they are a way to address 

climate change, increase domestic 

alternative energy production, enhance 

forest management and create related 

employment opportunities. 

For stationary sources co-firing fossil 

fuel and biologically-based fuel, and/or 

combusting mixed fuels (e.g., tire 

derived fuels, municipal solid waste 

(MSW)), the biogenic CO2 emissions 

from that combustion are included in 

the biomass deferral. However, the fossil 

fuel CO2 emissions are not. Emissions of 

CO2 from processing of mineral 

feedstocks (e.g., calcium carbonate) are 

also not included in the deferral. 

Various methods are available to 

calculate both the biogenic and fossil 

fuel portions of CO2 emissions, 

including those methods contained in 

the GHG Reporting Program (40 CFR 

part 98). Consistent with the other 

pollutants in PSD and Title V, there are 

no requirements to use a particular 

method in determining biogenic and 

fossil fuel CO2 emissions. 

EPA’s final biomass deferral rule is an 

interim deferral for biogenic CO2

emissions only and does not relieve 

sources of the obligation to meet the 

PSD and Title V permitting 

requirements for other pollutant 

emissions that are otherwise applicable 

to the source during the deferral period 

or that may be applicable to the source 

at a future date pending the results of 

EPA’s study and subsequent rulemaking 

action. This means, for example, that if 

the deferral is applicable to biogenic 

CO2 emissions from a particular source 

during the three-year effective period 

and the study and potential future 

rulemaking do not provide for a 

permanent exemption from PSD and 

Title V permitting requirements for the 

biogenic CO2 emissions from a source 

with particular characteristics, then the 

deferral would end for that type of 

source and its biogenic CO2 emissions 

would have to be appropriately 

considered in any applicability 

determinations that the source may 

need to conduct for future stationary 

source permitting purposes, consistent 

with the potential subsequent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21295 

rulemaking and the Final Tailoring Rule 

(e.g., a major source determination for 

Title V purposes or a major modification 

determination for PSD purposes). 

EPA also wishes to clarify that we do 

not require that a PSD permit issued 

during the deferral period be amended 

or that any PSD requirements in a PSD 

permit existing at the time the deferral 

took effect, such as BACT limitations, be 

revised or removed from an effective 

PSD permit for any reason related to the 

deferral or when the deferral period 

expires. The regulation at 40 CFR 

52.21(w) requires that any PSD permit 

shall remain in effect, unless and until 

it expires or it is rescinded, under the 

limited conditions specified in that 

provision. Thus, a PSD permit that is 

issued to a source while the deferral was 

effective need not be reopened or 

amended if the source is no longer 

eligible to exclude its biogenic CO2

emissions from PSD applicability after 

the deferral expires. However, if such a 

source undertakes a modification that 

could potentially require a PSD permit 

and the source is not eligible to 

continue excluding its biogenic CO2

emissions after the deferral expires, the 

source will need to consider its biogenic 

CO2 emissions in assessing whether it 

needs a PSD permit to authorize the 

modification. 

Any future actions to modify, shorten, 

or make permanent the deferral for 

biogenic sources are beyond the scope 

of the biomass deferral action and this 

proposed approval of the deferral into 

the Missouri SIP, and will be addressed 

through subsequent rulemaking. The 

results of EPA’s review of the science 

related to net atmospheric impacts of 

biogenic CO2 and the framework to 

properly account for such emissions in 

Title V and PSD permitting programs 

based on the study are prospective and 

unknown. Thus, we are unable to 

predict which biogenic CO2 sources, if 

any, currently subject to the deferral as 

incorporated into the Missouri SIP 

could be subject to any permanent 

exemptions, or which currently deferred 

sources could be potentially required to 

account for their emissions. 

Similar to our approach with the 

Tailoring Rule, EPA incorporated the 

biomass deferral into the regulations 

governing state programs and into the 

Federal PSD program by amending the 

definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

under 40 CFR sections 51.166 and 40 

CFR 52.21 respectively. Missouri 

implements its PSD program by 

incorporating section 52.21 by reference 

in its rule 10 CSR 10–6.060 

‘‘Construction Permits Required.’’ The 

Missouri submission incorporates by 

reference the CFR through July 1, 2011, 

in order to adopt the Biomass Deferral. 

Based upon EPA’s analysis of the 

required provisions of the July 20, 2011, 

Biomass Deferral rule and how Missouri 

meets these requirements, EPA is 

proposing to approve the September 5, 

2012, Missouri SIP revision 

incorporating the Biomass Deferral. 

IX. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA proposes to approve the 

infrastructure SIP submissions from 

Missouri which address the 

requirements of CAA sections 110 (a)(1) 

and (2) as applicable to the 1997 and 

2006 NAAQS for PM2.5. Based upon 

review of the State’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in those 

submissions 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 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS are implemented in the state. 

In addition, EPA proposes to approve 

two additional SIP submissions from 

Missouri, one addressing the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

program in Missouri as it relates to 

PM2.5 (unless otherwise noted), and 

another SIP revision addressing the 

requirements of section 128 of the CAA, 

both of which support the requirements 

associated with infrastructure SIPs. 

We are hereby soliciting comment on 

this proposed action. Final rulemaking 

will occur after consideration of any 

comments. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the 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 rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 29, 2013. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08399 Filed 4–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS