[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14062-14066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06153]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0123; FRL-9924-54-Region 7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri, Construction Permits Required

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State 
of Missouri submitted on October 2, 2013. This proposed rulemaking will 
amend the SIP to update the construction permits rule to incorporate by 
reference recent EPA actions related to plantwide applicability 
limitations (PALs) for greenhouse gases (GHGs) and to correct the 
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' Other revisions include 
modifying the notification period for initial equipment start-up and 
clarifying de minimis permit air quality analysis requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0123, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d35141a1f1818530d1c08111c3d180d1c531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="440c2d232621216a3425312825042134256a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>.
    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2015-0123. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or 
email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The 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 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 be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
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 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 
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: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7028 or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d991b0bebbbcbcf7a9b8acb5b899bca9b8f7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="165e7f71747373386677637a775673667738717960">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Background
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

[[Page 14063]]

IV. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted by the state 
of Missouri for 10 CSR 10-6.060, ``Construction Permits Required''. On 
October 3, 2013, EPA received a request to amend the SIP to incorporate 
by reference all sections of title 40 part 52.21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) except for subsections (a), (q) and (s) through July 
1, 2012. Missouri is also requesting to amend the SIP to incorporate by 
reference EPA's July 12, 2012, final rule finalizing PALs for GHGs (77 
FR 41051) and EPA's October 25, 2012, final rule amending the 
definition of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant'' concerning condensable 
particulate matter (77 FR 65107). In Missouri's letter to EPA, Missouri 
also requested to amend the SIP to incorporate EPA's May 18, 2011, rule 
repealing the grandfathering provisions for particulate matter less 
than 2.5 micrometers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) under the PSD program, but 
because the state has an already approved PSD program which 
incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 through July 
1, 2011, Missouri's Federally approved program already incorporates 
this action. Other revisions to Missouri's rule which we are proposing 
to take action on include clarifying the requirements for conducting an 
air quality analysis in section 5, De Minimis Permits and making minor 
administrative clarifications as well as revising the notification 
period for initial start-up in section 6, General Permits.

II. Background

    Missouri implements its PSD program by incorporating by reference 
section 52.21 of the CFR in its rule 10 CSR 10-6.060, ``Construction 
Permits Required''. In a previous action on June 21, 2013, EPA approved 
the most recent amendment to Missouri's PSD program (78 FR 37457). 
Missouri's currently approved PSD program incorporates by reference 
(IBR) the Federal regulations as promulgated July 1, 2011, in the CFR, 
and incorporates the July 20, 2011, rule ``Deferral for CO2 Emissions 
from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration and Title V Programs'' (``Biomass Deferral'' 
76 FR 43490). Missouri's currently approved PSD program contains a 
number of important required elements, including those related to the 
2008 ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for 
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)'' (2008 
NSR PM<INF>2.5</INF> Rule; 73 FR 28321). For PSD sources in Missouri, 
PSD permits must address direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions as well as 
precursor emissions (including sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) and 
oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>)), establish significant emission 
rates for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and precursor emissions, and establish the 
requirement to account for condensable particulate matter. On January 
4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(D.C. Circuit), in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, issued a 
decision that remanded the EPA's rules implementing the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\1\ The court's remand of the 2008 NSR 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Rule is relevant to this final rulemaking. This rule 
promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> in 
both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/
unclassifiable areas (PSD). The D.C. Circuit found that EPA erred in 
implementing the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS pursuant to the general 
implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title 1 of the CAA, 
rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions 
specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4. The 
Court ordered EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 
consistent with this opinion.'' (Id. at 437). However, as the 
requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, it is 
EPA's position that the portions of the 2008 NSR PM<INF>2.5</INF> Rule 
that address requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> in attainment and 
unclassifiable areas are not affected by the D.C. Circuit's opinion in 
NRDC v. EPA. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any 
PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM<INF>2.5</INF> Rule in 
order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's approval 
of Missouri's SIP as to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 
NSR PM<INF>2.5</INF> Rule does not conflict with the D.C. Circuit's 
opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 20, 2010, EPA promulgated additional PSD regulations 
relating to PM<INF>2.5</INF>: ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs), and 
Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMC)'' (2010 PSD 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Rule, 73 FR 64864). On January 22, 2013, the D.C. 
Circuit, in Sierra Club v. EPA, issued a judgment that, inter alia, 
vacated and remanded the SIL provisions at section 52.21(k)(2). 
Additionally, the D.C. Circuit vacated the SMC provisions at section 
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c).\2\ In response to the D.C. Circuit's decision, EPA 
took final action on December 9, 2013, to remove the SIL provisions 
from the Federal PSD regulations, and to revise the SMC for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> to zero (78 FR 73698). On March 19, 2013, and October 
21, 2013, Missouri submitted additional information to amend their 
September 5, 2012, SIP submission to clarify that they no longer 
intended to include the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SILs and SMC provisions (see 
78 FR 37457, June 21, 2013, for more information). Specifically, 
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) will not apply either 
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SILs provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 
52.21(k)(2), or the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SMC provisions at 40 CFR 
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) to pending or future PSD permit actions. It is the 
state's intent that PM<INF>2.5</INF> will remain on the list of 
pollutants but that the associated concentration level would be blank 
or zero. In other words, pre-construction monitoring will continue to 
apply but without de minimis thresholds. Therefore, the provisions with 
which the court took issue are not in effect in Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 705 F.3d 458, 469
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air 
Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, issued a decision 
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to greenhouse 
gas (GHG) emissions.\3\ The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not 
treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a 
source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a 
PSD permit. The Court also said that EPA could continue to require that 
PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other 
than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the 
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to 
act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending 
further judicial action before the D.C. Circuit to effectuate the 
decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would 
require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme 
Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the 
requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that 
sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant, (i) that 
the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source 
thesholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase 
and a significant net emissions increase from

[[Page 14064]]

a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 134 S.Ct. 2427.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules in light of the 
Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states 
will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the 
Supreme Court's decision. This can be accomplished as soon as EPA 
revises the Federal PSD rules in states that allow future revisions to 
the Federal PSD program to be automatically incorporated into the SIP. 
The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the 
EPA regulations is expected to be informed by additional legal 
processes before the D.C. Circuit. EPA is not expecting states to have 
revised their existing PSD program regulations at this juncture, before 
the D.C. Circuit has addressed these issues and before EPA has revised 
its regulations at 40 CFR 51.166. However, EPA is evaluating PSD 
program submissions to assure that the state's program correctly 
addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
    Missouri's existing approved SIP contains the GHG permitting 
requirements reflected in 40 CFR 52.21 after EPA issued the Tailoring 
Rule. As a result, the PSD permitting program in Missouri previously 
approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits 
(otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) 
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT 
when sources emit or increase greenhouse gases in the amount of 75,000 
tons per year (measured as carbon dioxide equivalent). Although the 
approved Missouri PSD permitting program may also currently contain 
provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court 
decision, this does not prevent EPA from approving the submission 
addressed in this rule. Missouri's 2013 SIP submission does not add any 
GHG permitting requirements that are inconsistent with the Supreme 
Court decision. While this submission incorporates all of section 52.21 
for completeness, except for subsections (a), (q) and (s), the 
submission mostly reincorporates PSD permitting requirements for GHG's 
that are already in the Missouri SIP.
    This proposed revision does add to the Missouri SIP the elements of 
EPA's July 12, 2012, rulemaking, Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG 
Plantwide Applicability Limits, ``Step 3 Tailoring Rule'' (77 FR 
41051), which implements Step 3 of the phase in of PSD permitting 
requirements for GHGs. This rule became effective on August 13, 2012. 
Specifically, the incorporation of the Step 3 rule provisions will 
allow GHG-emitting sources to obtain plantwide applicability limits 
(PALs) for their GHG-emitting sources on a carbon dioxide equivalent 
(CO2e) basis. The GHG PAL provisions, as currently written, include 
some provisions that may no longer be appropriate in light of the 
Supreme Court decision. Since the Supreme Court has determined that 
sources and modifications may not be defined as ``major'' solely on the 
basis of the level of GHGs emitted or increased, PALs for GHGs may no 
longer have value in some situations where a source might have 
triggered PSD based on GHG emissions alone. However, PALs for GHGs may 
still have a role to play in determining whether a modification that 
triggers PSD for a pollutant other than GHGs should also be subject to 
BACT for GHGs. These provisions, like the other GHG provisions 
discussed previously, will likely be revised pending further legal 
action. However, these provisions do not add new requirements for 
sources or modifications that only emit or increase GHGs above the 
major source threshold or the 75,000 tpy GHG level in section 
52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PALs provisions provide increased 
flexibility to sources that wish to address their GHG emissions in a 
PAL. Since this flexibility may still be valuable to sources in at 
least one context described above, we believe that it is appropriate to 
approve these provisions into the Missouri SIP at this juncture.
    EPA is proposing to revise Missouri's SIP to incorporate by 
reference EPA's October 25, 2012 rule, ``Implementation of the New 
Source Review Program for Condensable Particulate Matter''. This 
revision is appropriate and necessary to ensure that the inadvertent 
error which was contained in EPA's 2008 rule, which was previously SIP 
approved in the Missouri rule (78 FR 37457) is corrected. EPA's 2008 
rule, ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for 
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>).'' See 
73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), inadvertently included a requirement to 
consider condensable PM when measuring one of the emissions-related 
indicators for PM known as ``particulate matter emissions'' in the 
context of the PSD and NSR regulations. EPA's 2012 rule corrects the 
error in the 2008 rule and therefore it is appropriate and necessary to 
incorporate by reference the 2012 rule and related corrections to the 
definition of ``particulate matter emissions.''

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

    As stated above, Missouri's incorporation by reference of all 
sections of title 40 section 52.21 of the CFR except for subsections 
(a), (q) and (s) and EPA's July 12, 2012, final rule on PALs for GHGs 
(77 FR 41051) and EPA's October 25, 2012, final rule amending the 
definition of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant'' concerning condensable 
particulate matter (77 FR 65107) are appropriate even in light of 
recent court actions and ensure that the state PSD program is in 
agreement with Federal requirements. Missouri also requested to amend 
the SIP to incorporate EPA's May 18, 2011, rule repealing the 
grandfathering provisions for PM<INF>2.5</INF> under the PSD program, 
but because the state has an already approved PSD program which 
incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 through July 
1, 2011, Missouri's Federally approved program already incorporates 
this action.
    Additional revisions include, in paragraph (5)(D)(1) of the rule, 
Missouri is adding subparagraphs A. and B. which provide clear and 
specific requirements for when an air quality analysis is required for 
De Minimis permits. In (5)(D)(2) of the rule, Missouri is adding 
subparagraphs A., B., and C. which provide clear and specific 
requirements for when the director may require an air quality analysis. 
These revisions strengthen Missouri's PSD program.
    MDNR is making minor administrative edits to subsections (6)(A) and 
(6)(A)(2). In (6)(E)(1)(A) Missouri is modifying the notification 
period for initial equipment start-up. This revision shortens the 
timeframe for which notification is provided to the state prior to 
initial start-up.
    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP 
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also 
satisfies the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In 
addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP 
requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing 
regulations. MDNR received five (5) comments from one source: The U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. Missouri responded to each of the 
comments and made revisions to the rule as appropriate. Overall, these 
actions strengthen the Missouri SIP, by ensuring the state PSD program 
incorporates recent Federal PSD updates. These revisions do not

[[Page 14065]]

negatively impact air quality, nor relax the SIP.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the SIP. These 
revisions update the construction permits rule to incorporate by 
reference recent EPA actions related to PALs for GHGs, and amend the 
definition of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant.'' Other revisions include 
modifying the notification period for initial equipment start-up and 
clarifying de minimis permit air quality analysis requirements.
    We are processing this rule as a proposed action because we are 
soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will 
occur after consideration of any comments.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference Missouri 10 CSR 10-6.060 ``Construction Permits Required'' 
described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. 
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally 
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble for more information).
    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms 
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
    <bullet> does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 18, 2015. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not 
affect the finality of this rulemaking for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectivess of such 
future rule or action. This proposed action may not be challenged later 
in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 9, 2015.
 Mark Hague,
 Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 
CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising 
the entry for 10-6.060 to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1320  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

[[Page 14066]]



                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State
      Missouri citation              Title         effective   EPA Approval date            Explanation
                                                      date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods and Air Pollution Control
                                  Regulations for the Entire State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CSR 10-6.060..............  Construction          10/30/13  3/18/15 [Insert    Provisions of the 2010 PM2.5
                                Permits Required.               Federal Register   PSD--Increments, SILs and
                                                                citation].         SMCs rule (75 FR 64865,
                                                                                   October 20, 2010) relating to
                                                                                   SILs and SMCs that were
                                                                                   affected by the January 22,
                                                                                   2013 U.S. Court of Appeals
                                                                                   decision are not SIP
                                                                                   approved.
                                                                                  Provisions of the 2002 NSR
                                                                                   reform rule relating to the
                                                                                   Clean Unit Exemption and
                                                                                   Pollution Control Projects
                                                                                   are not SIP approved.
                                                                                  In addition, we have not
                                                                                   approve Missouri's rule
                                                                                   incorporating EPA's 2007
                                                                                   revision fo the definition of
                                                                                   ``chemical processing
                                                                                   plants'' (the ``Ethanol
                                                                                   Rule,'' 72 FR 24060 (May 1,
                                                                                   2007).
                                                                                  Although exemptions previously
                                                                                   listed in 10 CSR 10-6.060
                                                                                   have been transferred to 10
                                                                                   CSR 10-6.061, the Federally-
                                                                                   approved SIP continues to
                                                                                   include the following
                                                                                   exemption, ``Livestock and
                                                                                   livestock handling systems
                                                                                   from which the only potential
                                                                                   contaminant is odorous gas.''
                                                                                  Section 9, pertaining to
                                                                                   hazardous air pollutants, is
                                                                                   not SIP approved.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-06153 Filed 3-17-15; 08:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>