32200 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

telephone: (202) 693–1999; email: 

Meilinger.Francis2@dol.gov. 

• General and technical information. 

Contact Mat Chibbaro or Bill Hamilton, 

Fire Protection Engineers, Office of 

Safety Systems, OSHA Directorate of 

Standards and Guidance, Room N–3609, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC, 20210; telephone: (202) 693–2255; 

email: Chibbaro.Mat@dol.gov or 

Hamilton.Bill@dol.gov. 

• Copies of this Federal Register 

notice. Electronic copies are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

Federal Register notice, as well as news 

releases and other relevant information 

and documents, also are available on the 

OSHA Web page at http://

www.osha.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Emergency response is one of the 

most hazardous occupations in America 

(see the National Fire Protection 

Association report ‘‘Firefighter Fatalities 

in the United States—2012’’ and the 

2012 Federal Emergency Management 

Agency report ‘‘Firefighter Fatalities in 

the United States in 2012’’). Emergency 

responders include firefighters, 

emergency medical service personnel, 

hazardous material employees, and 

technical rescue specialists. Also, law 

enforcement officers usually are 

considered emergency responders 

because they often assist in emergency 

response incidents. OSHA notes, 

however, that there are no standards 

issued by the Agency that specifically 

address occupational hazards uniquely 

related to law enforcement activities. 

Many emergency responders have cross 

training in these specialties, and may 

serve in multiple roles depending upon 

the type of emergency incident 

involved. Skilled support employees are 

not emergency responders, but 

nonetheless have specialized training 

that can be important to the safe and 

successful resolution of an emergency 

incident. 

The Agency issued a Request for 

Information (RFI) (74 FR 51735, Sept. 

11, 2007) that solicited comments from 

the public to evaluate what action, if 

any, the Agency should take to further 

address emergency response and 

preparedness. Recent events, such as the 

April 2013 tragedy in West, Texas, that 

killed several emergency responders, 

and an analysis of the information 

provided in response to the 2007 RFI, 

make it clear that emergency responder 

health and safety continues to be an area 

of ongoing concern. Accordingly, OSHA 

determined it would be beneficial to 

hold a stakeholder meeting to gather 

additional information. OSHA plans to 

use the information received in 

response to the 2007 RFI and obtained 

at this stakeholder meeting when 

considering a proposed standard for 

emergency response and preparedness. 

II. Stakeholder Meeting 

OSHA will conduct the stakeholder 

meeting as a group discussion 

addressing views, concerns, and issues 

surrounding emergency response and 

preparedness. To facilitate as much 

group interaction as possible, OSHA is 

not permitting formal presentations. 

OSHA will focus the meeting on major 

issues such as scope and approach. 

OSHA will provide participants with 

additional information on the major 

issues for discussion prior to the 

meeting. 

III. Public Participation 

The meeting will accommodate about 

20 participants. Members of the general 

public (if registered) may observe, but 

not participate in, the meeting if space 

permits. OSHA staff will be present to 

take part in the discussions. PEC 

Solutions, Inc. (PEC) is managing the 

logistics for the meeting. Accordingly, 

PEC will provide a facilitator and 

compile notes summarizing the 

discussion; these notes will list 

participants and their affiliations, but 

will not attribute specific comments to 

individual speakers. PEC also will make 

an audio recording of each session to 

ensure that the summary notes are 

accurate, but will not transcribe these 

recordings. OSHA will post the 

summary notes in the docket for this 

rulemaking, Docket No. OSHA 2007– 

0073; the docket is available at http://

www.regulations.gov and OSHA’s 

Docket Office. 

The meeting will take place July 30, 

2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at the 

Frances Perkins Building, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC, 20210. Based on the number of 

interested participants, OSHA may hold 

a second meeting on July 31, 2014. 

To participate in the stakeholder 

meeting, or to be a nonparticipating 

observer, you must submit a request 

using one of the three methods specified 

above under ADDRESSES by the deadline 

specified under DATES. OSHA will select 

participants to ensure a fair 

representation of interests and diverse 

viewpoints, and will send you 

confirmation of your registration no 

later than one week prior to the meeting. 

OSHA will not accommodate walk-in 

attendees at the meeting. When 

submitting your request, please provide 

the following information: 

• Name, address, phone, fax, and 

email; 

• Organization for which you work; 

• Organization you represent (if 

different); 

• Participant or nonparticipating 

observer; and 

• Stakeholder category: public fire/

rescue service, federal fire/rescue 

service, contract fire/rescue service, 

private fire brigade, emergency medical 

service, technical rescue, emergency 

management, law enforcement, other 

(please specify). 

Authority and Signature 

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, authorized the 

preparation of this notice pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912; 

Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part 1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on May 28, 

2014. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12928 Filed 6–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0290; FRL–9911–73– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri; Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from the State of 

Missouri addressing the applicable 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 110 for the 2008 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for Lead (Pb), which requires 

that each state adopt and submit a SIP 

to support implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

new or revised NAAQS promulgated by 

EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred 

to as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 32201 

1Although the effective date of the Federal 

Register notice for the final rule was January 12, 

2009, the rule was signed by the Administrator and 

publicly disseminated on October 15, 2008. 

Therefore, the deadline for submittal of 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS was 

October 15, 2011. 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 7, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2014–0290, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: 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, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, Air and Waste Management 

Division, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014– 

0290. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http://

www.regulations.gov or email 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http://

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and should be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219 from 8 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The interested 

persons wanting to examine these 

documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy Bhesania, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: 

(913) 551–7147; fax number: (913) 551– 

7065; email address: 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 are the applicable elements under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) related to the 

2008 Pb NAAQS? 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions? 

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

addressed the relevant elements of 

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

V. What action is EPA proposing? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is proposing action on a 

December 20, 2011, SIP submission 

from Missouri that addresses the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS. The requirement for states 

to make a SIP submission of this type 

arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 

years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),’’ and these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

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

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

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

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

II. What are the applicable elements 

under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) related 

to the 2008 Pb NAAQS? 

On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the 

primary and secondary Pb NAAQS 

(hereafter the 2008 Pb NAAQS). The 

level of the primary (health-based) 

standard was revised to 0.15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

measured as total suspended particles 

(TSP) and not to be exceeded with an 

averaging time of a rolling 3-month 

period. EPA also revised the secondary 

(welfare-based) standard to be identical 

to the primary standard (73 FR 66964).1

For the 2008 Pb NAAQS, states 

typically have met many of the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous NAAQS. Nevertheless, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

have to review and revise, as 

appropriate, their existing SIPs to 

ensure that they are adequate to address 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS. To assist states in 

meeting this statutory requirement, EPA 

issued guidance on October 14, 2011, 

addressing the infrastructure SIP 

elements required under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32202 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2Stephen D. Page, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 

Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS),’’ Memorandum to EPA Regional Air 

Division Directors, Regions I–X, October 14, 2011 

(2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance). 

3For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

4See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

5EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

6See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

7On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

8For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

NAAQS.2 EPA will address these 

elements below under the following 

headings: (A) Emission limits and other 

control measures; (B) Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system; (C) 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures (PSD, New Source Review for 

nonattainment areas, and construction 

and modification of all stationary 

sources); (D) Interstate and international 

transport; (E) Adequate authority, 

resources, implementation, and 

oversight; (F) Stationary source 

monitoring system; (G) Emergency 

authority; (H) Future SIP revisions; (I) 

Nonattainment areas; (J) Consultation 

with government officials, public 

notification, prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD), and visibility 

protection; (K) Air quality and 

modeling/data; (L) Permitting fees; and 

(M) Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities. 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.3 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.4 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.5 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

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

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

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

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.6

Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to 

allow it to take action on the individual 

parts of one larger, comprehensive 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to 

act at different times on various 

elements and sub-elements of the same 

infrastructure SIP submission.7

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants, for example 

because the content and scope of a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission to 

meet this element might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS 

than for a minor revision to an existing 

NAAQS.8

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 32203 

9EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

10 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

11EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that 

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submissions. 

For example, section 172(c)(7) requires 

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment 

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

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

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD 

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

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

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.9 EPA most recently 

issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

on September 13, 2013 (2013 

Guidance).10 EPA developed this 

document to provide states with up-todate guidance for infrastructure SIPs for 

any new or revised NAAQS. While 

today’s proposed action relies on the 

specific guidance issued for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS, we have also considered this 

more recent 2013 guidance where 

applicable (although not specifically 

issued for the 2008 Pb NAAQS) and 

have found no conflicts between the 

issued guidance and review of 

Missouri’s SIP submission. Within the 

2013 Guidance, EPA describes the duty 

of states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions.11 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submissions need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

SIP appropriately addresses the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and section 128. The 2013 Guidance 

explains EPA’s interpretation that there 

may be a variety of ways by which states 

can appropriately address these 

substantive statutory requirements, 

depending on the structure of an 

individual state’s permitting or 

enforcement program (e.g., whether 

permits and enforcement orders are 

approved by a multi-member board or 

by a head of an executive agency). 

However they are addressed by the 

state, the substantive requirements of 

section 128 are necessarily included in 

EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and NSR 

pollutants, including GHGs. By contrast, 

structural PSD program requirements do 

not include provisions that are not 

required under EPA’s regulations at 40 

CFR 51.166 but are merely available as 

an option for the state, such as the 

option to provide grandfathering of 

complete permit applications with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Accordingly, the latter optional 

provisions are types of provisions EPA 

considers irrelevant in the context of an 

infrastructure SIP action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether 

the state has an EPA-approved minor 

new source review program and 

whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32204 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

13For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

14EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

15See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

16The specific nonattainment area plan 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to 

the timing requirements of section 172, not the 

timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). Thus, 

section 110(a)(2)(A) does not require that states 

submit regulations or emissions limits specifically 

for attaining the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Those SIP 

provisions are due as part of each state’s attainment 

plan, and will be addressed separately from the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). In the context 

of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the 

existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, 

EPA is only evaluating whether the state’s SIP has 

basic structural provisions for the implementation 

of the NAAQS. 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without scrutinizing the 

totality of the existing SIP for such 

potentially deficient provisions and may 

approve the submission even if it is 

aware of such existing provisions.12 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely 

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance 

gives simpler recommendations with 

respect to carbon monoxide than other 

NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow EPA to take appropriately 

tailored action, depending upon the 

nature and severity of the alleged SIP 

deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes 

EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the 

Agency determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.13 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.14

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.15

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of how the 

State addressed the relevant elements 

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

On December 20, 2011, EPA Region 7 

received Missouri’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 Pb standard. 

This SIP submission became complete 

as a matter of law on June 20, 2012. EPA 

has reviewed Missouri’s infrastructure 

SIP submission and the relevant 

statutory and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in that 

submission or referenced in Missouri’s 

SIP. Below is EPA’s evaluation of how 

the state addressed the applicable 

elements of section 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

(A) Emission limits and other control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limits and other control measures, 

means or techniques, schedules for 

compliance and other related matters as 

needed to implement, maintain and 

enforce each NAAQS.16

The Revised Statues of the State of 

Missouri (RSMo), otherwise referred to 

as Missouri’s ‘‘Air Conservation Law,’’ 

and Missouri’s Air Pollution Control 

Rules authorize the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR) to regulate air quality and 

implement air quality control 

regulations. Specifically, 643.030, RSMo 

authorizes the Air Conservation 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 32205 

17As 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. 

Commission (MACC) of the State of 

Missouri to control air pollution, which 

is defined in 643.020, RSMo to include 

air contaminants in quantities, of 

characteristics and of a duration which 

cause or contribute to injury to human, 

plant, or animal life or health or to 

property. Missouri’s Air Conservation 

Law, 643.050, RSMo, authorizes the 

MACC to classify and identify air 

contaminants. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.020 ‘‘Definitions and Common 

Reference Tables’’ is also used to define 

terms that are necessary to classify 

pollutants and implement and enforce 

standards. 

Missouri’s rule 10 CSR 10–1.010 

‘‘General Organization’’ reiterates the 

MACC’s responsibility to establish air 

quality control regions as well as adopt, 

promulgate, amend and rescind rules. 

Subsection (3)B of 10 CSR 10–1.010 

tasks the MDNR Air Pollution Control 

Program with carrying out the policies 

of the MACC. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.010 ‘‘Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ 

adopts the 2008 Pb standard as 

promulgated by EPA. In addition, 

section (12) of 10 CSR 10–6.030 

‘‘Sampling Methods for Air Pollution 

Sources’’ establishes the appropriate 

sampling method for Pb from air 

pollution sources, and similarly, 

subsections (4)(G) and (4)(O) of 10 CSR 

10–6.040 ‘‘Reference Methods’’ 

incorporate by reference the relevant 

appendices in 40 CFR part 50 for 

measuring and calculating the 

concentration of Pb in the atmosphere to 

determine whether the standard has 

been met. Therefore, Pb is an air 

contaminant which may be regulated 

under Missouri law. 

Missouri’s Air Conservation Law, 

643.050, RSMo authorizes the MACC, 

among other things, to regulate the use 

of equipment known to be a source of 

air contamination and to establish 

emissions limitations for air 

contaminant sources. Specifically to 

create control measures for Pb, Missouri 

rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 ‘‘Restriction of 

Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead 

Smelter-Refinery Installations’’ provides 

specific Pb emission limitations for both 

the primary and secondary smelter 

operations in Missouri. Missouri also 

establishes timetables for compliance in 

its rules, as appropriate. 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Missouri’s SIP, EPA 

believes that the Missouri SIP 

adequately addresses the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS and is proposing to approve 

this element of the December 20, 2011, 

SIP submission. 

(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/ 

data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) 

requires SIPs to include provisions to 

provide for establishment and operation 

of ambient air quality monitors, 

collection and analysis of ambient air 

quality data, and making these data 

available to EPA upon request. 

To address this element, 643.050, 

RSMo provides the enabling authority 

necessary for Missouri to fulfill the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B). 

The Air Pollution Control Program and 

Air Quality Analysis Section, within 

MDNR, implement these requirements. 

Along with their other duties, the 

monitoring program collects air 

monitoring data, quality assures the 

results, and reports the data. Further, 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–1.010(2)(D) 

‘‘General Organization’’ outlines the 

roles, duties and obligations of the Air 

Pollution Control Program including 

those for air quality monitoring. 

MDNR submits annual monitoring 

network plans to EPA for approval, 

including its Pb monitoring network, as 

required by 40 CFR 58.10. Prior to 

submission to EPA, Missouri makes the 

plan available for public review on 

MDNR’s Web site at (http:// 

www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/monitoring/ 

monitoringnetworkplan.pdf). MDNR 

also conducts five-year monitoring 

network assessments, including the Pb 

monitoring network, as required by 40 

CFR 58.10(d). On November 22, 2013, 

EPA approved Missouri’s 2013 Ambient 

Air Quality Monitoring Plan and on 

October 27, 2010, EPA approved 

Missouri’s Five-Year Air Monitoring 

Network Assessment. Subsection (4)(G) 

of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.040 

‘‘Reference Methods’’ requires that 

ambient concentrations of Pb be 

measured in accordance with the 

applicable Federal regulations in 40 

CFR part 50, or an equivalent method as 

approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 

part 53. Furthermore, Missouri submits 

air quality data to EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) in a timely manner, 

pursuant to the provisions of the state’s 

grant work plans developed in 

conjunction with EPA. 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Missouri’s SIP, EPA 

believes that the Missouri SIP meets the 

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

the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to 

approve this element of the December 

20, 2011 submission. 

(C) Program for enforcement of 

control measures (PSD, New Source 

Review for nonattainment areas, and 

construction and modification of all 

stationary sources): Section 110(a)(2)(C) 

requires states to include the following 

three elements in the SIP: (1) A program 

providing for enforcement of all SIP 

measures described in section 

110(a)(2)(A); (2) a program for the 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of stationary sources as 

necessary to protect the applicable 

NAAQS (i.e., state-wide permitting of 

minor sources); and (3) a permit 

program to meet the major source 

permitting requirements of the CAA (for 

areas designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable for the NAAQS in 

question).17

(1) Enforcement of SIP Measures. 

With respect to enforcement of 

requirements of the SIP, the Missouri 

statutes provide authority for MDNR to 

enforce the requirements of the Air 

Conservation Law, and any regulations, 

permits, or final compliance orders 

issued under the provisions of that law. 

For example, 643.080, RSMo authorizes 

MDNR to issue compliance orders for 

violations of the Air Conservation Law, 

rules promulgated thereunder (which 

includes rules comprising the Missouri 

SIP), and conditions of any permits 

(which include permits under SIPapproved permitting programs). 

Missouri Air Conservation Law 643.085, 

RSMo authorizes MDNR to assess 

administrative penalties for violations of 

the statute, regulations, permit 

conditions, or administrative orders. In 

addition, 643.151, RSMo authorizes the 

MACC to initiate civil actions for these 

violations, and to seek penalties and 

injunctive relief to prevent any further 

violation. The Air Conservation Law 

643.191, RSMo provides for criminal 

penalties for known violations of the 

statute, standards, permit conditions, or 

regulations promulgated thereunder. 

In addition, state regulations 

governing the MACC in subsection (3) of 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–1.010 ‘‘General 

Organization’’ reinforce the state’s 

authority by authorizing the MACC to 

make investigations, make orders and 

determinations, and refer alleged 

violations to the county prosecutor or 

attorney general. Similarly, the director 

of MDNR is authorized to investigate 

complaints, issue abatement orders, 

recommend that legal action be taken by 

the attorney general and enforce 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32206 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

18U.S. and State of Missouri vs. Doe Run 

Resources Corporation, Multimedia Consent Decree, 

dated October 11, 2010; lodged March 11, 2013 

(Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-1895–JCH). 

provisions of the Air Conservation Law. 

Paragraph (3)(B)4.B. establishes the Air 

Pollution Control Program’s Compliance 

and Enforcement section and its duties. 

(2) Minor New Source Review. Section 

110(a)(2)(C) also requires that the SIP 

include measures to regulate 

construction and modification of 

stationary sources to protect the 

NAAQS. With respect to smaller 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 2008 Pb standard with respect to 

the general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. In this action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove the 

state’s existing minor NSR program to 

the extent that it is inconsistent with 

EPA’s regulations governing this 

program. EPA has maintained that the 

CAA does not require that new 

infrastructure SIP submissions correct 

any defects in existing EPA-approved 

provisions of minor NSR programs in 

order for EPA to approve the 

infrastructure SIP for element (C) (e.g., 

76 FR 41076–41079). 

(3) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit program. 

Missouri also has a program approved 

by EPA as meeting the requirements of 

part C, relating to prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality. 

In order to demonstrate that Missouri 

has met this sub-element, this PSD 

program must cover requirements not 

just for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, but for all 

other regulated NSR pollutants as well. 

As stated in the October 14, 2011, Pb 

Infrastructure SIP guidance, EPA has 

not proposed to amend the PSD 

regulations with regard to the Pb 

NAAQS because it believes that, 

generally, there is sufficient guidance 

and regulations already in place to fully 

implement the revised Pb NAAQS. 

In a previous action on June 21, 2013, 

EPA determined that that Missouri has 

a program in place that meets all the 

PSD requirements related to all other 

regulated NSR pollutants (78 FR 37457). 

Missouri has demonstrated that its PSD 

program covers the requirements for the 

Pb NAAQS and all other regulated NSR 

pollutants through section (8) of 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.060 

‘‘Construction Permits Required.’’ 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Missouri’s SIP, with 

respect to the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 

EPA is proposing to approve this 

element of the December 20, 2011, 

submission. 

(D) Interstate and international 

transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes four requirements referred to 

as prongs 1 through 4. Prongs 1 and 2 

are provided at section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); 

prongs 3 and 4 are provided at section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include 

adequate provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfering with maintenance, of any 

NAAQS in another state. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to 

include adequate provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required of any other 

state to prevent significant deterioration 

of air quality or to protect visibility. 

With respect to prongs 1 and 2, the 

physical properties of Pb prevent Pb 

emissions from experiencing a 

significant degree of travel in the 

ambient air. No complex chemistry is 

needed to form Pb or Pb compounds in 

the ambient air; therefore, 

concentrations of Pb are typically 

highest near Pb sources. More 

specifically, there is a sharp decrease in 

Pb concentrations as the distance from 

the source increases. According to 

EPA’s report entitled Our Nation’s Air: 

Status and Trends Through 2010, Pb 

concentrations that are not near a source 

of Pb are approximately 8 times less 

than the typical concentrations near the 

source (http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/

2011/report/fullreport.pdf). EPA 

believes that the requirements of prongs 

1 and 2 can be satisfied through a state’s 

assessment as to whether a lead source 

located within its state in close 

proximity to a state border has 

emissions that contribute significantly 

to the nonattainment in or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

neighboring state. 

Missouri has two Pb nonattainment 

areas with sources of Pb emissions over 

0.5 tons per year (tpy). The first area is 

the Buick/Viburnum Trend area with 

four Pb-emitting sources. These sources 

are located approximately 90 miles 

away from any state border and 

therefore do not have an impact on any 

other state. The other area, 

Herculaneum, has one source with 

current Pb emissions over 0.5 tpy. This 

source is on the banks of the Mississippi 

River, just across from the State of 

Illinois. The Herculaneum facility is the 

only Pb source in Missouri near enough 

to a state border to have the potential for 

an impact on another state’s ambient air. 

For this source, in October 2010 the 

facility owner, The Doe Run Company, 

entered into a Consent Decree with EPA 

and MDNR to cease smelting operations 

at the Herculaneum facility on or before 

April 30, 2014.18 On April 14, 2013, 

EPA received, as part of the attainment 

demonstration for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 

modeling from MDNR. EPA has 

conducted an independent evaluation of 

the modeling, including the impacts of 

the facility shutdown, and agrees that 

the facility will not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

Pb NAAQS in Illinois. EPA notes that 

this is not a determination of whether 

the modeling submitted by Missouri 

supports approval of its 2008 Pb 

NAAQS attainment plan, as that matter 

will be the subject of a future SIP action 

as discussed below in the analysis of 

Nonattainment areas, section 

110(a)(2)(I). However, EPA has verified 

that the modeling was done in 

accordance with the necessary guidance 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 32207 

19Analysis by Mark Schmidt, OAQPS, ‘‘Ambient 

Pb’s Contribution to Class I Area Visibility 

Impairment,’’ June 17, 2011. 

under 40 CFR 51, appendix W 

(Guidance on Air Quality Models), and 

that the modeling demonstrated that 

this Pb source does not have a 

significant impact on Illinois. 

With respect to the PSD requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3, 

EPA notes that Missouri’s satisfaction of 

the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD 

requirements for attainment/

unclassifiable areas of the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS have been detailed in the 

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

For sources not subject to PSD for any 

one of the pollutants subject to 

regulation under the CAA because they 

are in a nonattainment area for a 

NAAQS, Missouri has adopted the 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) provisions required for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS through section (7) of 

Missouri rule, 10 CSR 10–6.060, 

‘‘Construction Permits Required.’’ EPA 

also notes that the proposed action in 

that section related to PSD is consistent 

with the proposed approval related to 

PSD for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4, 

significant impacts from Pb emissions 

from stationary sources are expected to 

be limited to short distances from the 

source and most, if not all, Pb stationary 

sources are located at distances from 

Class I areas such that visibility impacts 

would be negligible. Although Pb can be 

a component of coarse and fine 

particles, Pb generally comprises a small 

fraction of coarse and fine particles. 

Furthermore, when evaluating the 

extent that Pb could impact visibility, 

Pb-related visibility impacts were found 

to be insignificant (e.g., less than 

0.10%).19

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also requires 

that the SIP insure compliance with the 

applicable requirements of sections 126 

and 115 of the CAA, relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement, respectively. 

Section 126(a) of the CAA requires 

new or modified sources to notify 

neighboring states of potential impacts 

from sources within the state. Missouri 

regulations require that affected states 

receive notice prior to the 

commencement of any construction or 

modification of a source. Missouri’s rule 

10 CSR 10–6.060(6), ‘‘Construction 

Permits Required’’ requires that the 

review of all PSD permit applications 

follow the procedures of section (12)(A), 

Appendix A. Appendix A, in turn, 

requires that the permitting authority 

shall issue a draft permit for public 

comment, with notification to affected 

states on or before the time notice is 

provided to the public. In addition, no 

Missouri source or sources have been 

identified by EPA as having any 

interstate impacts under section 126 in 

any pending actions relating to any air 

pollutant. 

Section 115 of the CAA authorizes 

EPA to require a state to revise its SIP 

under certain conditions to alleviate 

international transport into another 

country. There are no final findings 

under section 115 of the CAA against 

Missouri with respect to any air 

pollutant. Thus, the state’s SIP does not 

need to include any provisions to meet 

the requirements of section 115. 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Missouri’s SIP, EPA 

believes that Missouri has the adequate 

infrastructure needed to address 

sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prongs 1 

through 4 and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to 

approve this element of the December 

20, 2011, submission. 

(E) Adequate authority, resources, 

implementation, and oversight: Section 

110(a)(2)(E) requires that SIPs provide 

for the following: (1) Necessary 

assurances that the state (and other 

entities within the state responsible for 

implementing the SIP) will have 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state or local law to 

implement the SIP, and that there are no 

legal impediments to such 

implementation; (2) requirements that 

the state comply with the requirements 

relating to state boards, pursuant to 

section 128 of the CAA; and (3) 

necessary assurances that the state has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of any plan provision 

for which it relies on local governments 

or other entities to carry out that portion 

of the plan. 

(1) Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires 

states to establish that they have 

adequate personnel, funding and 

authority. With respect to adequate 

authority, we have previously discussed 

Missouri’s statutory and regulatory 

authority to implement the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS, primarily in the discussion of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) above. Neither 

Missouri nor EPA has identified any 

legal impediments in the state’s SIP to 

implementation of the NAAQS. 

With respect to adequate resources, 

MDNR asserts that it has adequate 

personnel to implement the SIP. The 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS describes the 

regulations governing the various 

functions of personnel within the Air 

Pollution Control Program, including 

the Administration, Technical Support 

(Air Quality Analysis), Planning, 

Enforcement, and Permit Sections of the 

program (10 CSR 10–1.010(2)(D) 

‘‘Ambient Air Quality Standards’’). 

With respect to funding, the Air 

Conservation Law requires the MACC to 

establish an annual emissions fee for 

sources in order to fund the reasonable 

costs of administering various air 

pollution control programs. The Air 

Conservation Law, 643.079, RSMo 

provides for the deposit of the fees into 

various subaccounts (e.g., a subaccount 

for the Title V operating permit program 

used for Title V implementation 

activities; a subaccount for non-Title V 

air pollution control program activities). 

The state uses funds in the non-Title V 

subaccounts, along with general revenue 

funds and EPA grants under, for 

example, sections 103 and 105 of the 

CAA, to fund the programs. EPA 

conducts periodic program reviews to 

ensure that the state has adequate 

resources and funding to, among other 

things, implement the SIP. 

With respect to authority, Chapter 

643, RSMo provides the authority 

necessary to carry out the SIP 

requirements as referenced above in 

element A. 

(2) Conflict of interest provisions— 

section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

requires that each state SIP meet the 

requirements of section 128, relating to 

representation on state boards and 

conflicts of interest by members of such 

boards. Section 128(a)(1) requires that 

any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under the 

CAA must have at least a majority of 

members who represent the public 

interest and do not derive any 

‘‘significant portion’’ of their income 

from persons subject to permits and 

enforcement orders under the CAA. 

Section 128(a)(2) requires that members 

of such a board or body, or the head of 

an agency with similar powers, 

adequately disclose any potential 

conflicts of interest. 

On June 21, 2013, EPA approved 

Missouri’s SIP revision addressing the 

section 128 requirements (78 FR 37457). 

For a detailed discussion on EPA’s 

analysis of how Missouri meets the 

section 128 requirements, see EPA’s 

April 10, 2013, proposed approval of 

Missouri’s 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure SIP (78 FR 21281). 

(3) With respect to assurances that the 

state has responsibility to implement 

the SIP adequately when it authorizes 

local or other agencies to carry out 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32208 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

portions of the plan, 643.190, RSMo 

designates the MDNR as the air 

pollution control agency ‘‘for all 

purposes’’ of the CAA. Although 

643.140, RSMo authorizes the MACC to 

grant local governments such as cities or 

counties authority to carry out their own 

air pollution control programs, the 

MACC retains authority to enforce the 

provisions of Missouri’s Air 

Conservation Law in these local areas, 

notwithstanding any such authorization 

(643.140.4, RSMo). The MACC may also 

suspend or repeal the granting of 

authority if the local government is 

enforcing any local rules in a manner 

inconsistent with state law (643.140.10, 

RSMo). 

There are three local air agencies that 

conduct air quality work in Missouri: 

Kansas City, Springfield/Greene County 

and St. Louis County. The MDNR’s Air 

Pollution Control Program has a signed 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

with Kansas City and Springfield/

Greene County and a draft agreement for 

St. Louis County (to be finalized) which 

outlines the responsibilities for air 

quality activities with each local agency. 

The MDNR Air Program oversees the 

activities of the local agencies to ensure 

adequate implementation of the 

Missouri SIP. EPA conducts reviews of 

the local program activities in 

conjunction with its oversight of the 

state program. 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Missouri’s SIP, EPA 

believes that Missouri has the adequate 

infrastructure needed to address section 

110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and 

is proposing to approve this element of 

the December 20, 2011 submission. 

(F) Stationary source monitoring 

system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires 

states to establish a system to monitor 

emissions from stationary sources and 

to submit periodic emission reports. 

Each SIP shall require the installation, 

maintenance, and replacement of 

equipment, and the implementation of 

other necessary steps, by owners or 

operators of stationary sources, to 

monitor emissions from such sources. 

The SIP shall also require periodic 

reports on the nature and amounts of 

emissions and emissions-related data 

from such sources, and requires that the 

state correlate the source reports with 

emission limitations or standards 

established under the CAA. These 

reports must be made available for 

public inspection at reasonable times. 

To address this element, 

643.050.1(3)(a) of the Air Conservation 

Law authorizes the MACC to require 

persons engaged in operations which 

result in air pollution to monitor or test 

emissions and to file reports containing 

information relating to rate, period of 

emission and composition of effluent, 

and 643.192.2, RSMo requires an annual 

report that summarizes changes in air 

quality measured by MDNR and local 

and county air pollution control 

agencies. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.030 

‘‘Sampling Methods for Air Pollution 

Sources’’ incorporates various EPA 

reference methods for sampling and 

testing source emissions, including 

methods for Pb emissions. The Federal 

test methods are in 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A. Using these particular 

reference methods for Pb emissions, 10 

CSR 10–6.120 ‘‘Restriction of Emissions 

of Lead From Specific Lead SmelterRefinery Installations’’ has stack testing 

and reporting requirements for certain 

stationary sources of Pb emissions in 

Missouri. 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.110 

‘‘Reporting & Emission Data, Emission 

Fees, and Process Information’’ also 

requires monitoring of emissions and 

filing of periodic reports on emissions 

(see (4)(A) for the specific information 

required). Missouri uses this 

information to track progress towards 

maintaining the NAAQS, developing 

control and maintenance strategies, 

identifying sources and general 

emission levels, and determining 

compliance with emission regulations 

and additional EPA requirements. 

Missouri makes this information 

available to the public (10 CSR 10– 

6.110(3)(D)). Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.210 ‘‘Confidential Information,’’ 

specifically excludes emissions data 

from confidential treatment. Under that 

rule emissions data includes the results 

of any emissions testing or monitoring 

required to be reported by sources under 

Missouri’s air pollution control rules (10 

CSR 10–6.210(3)(B)2). 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Missouri’s SIP, EPA 

believes that Missouri has the adequate 

infrastructure needed to address section 

110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and 

is proposing to approve this element of 

the December 20, 2011, submission. 

(G) Emergency authority: Section 

110(a)(2)(G) requires SIPs to provide for 

authority to address activities causing 

imminent and substantial endangerment 

to public health or welfare or the 

environment (comparable to the 

authorities provided in section 303 of 

the CAA), and to include contingency 

plans to implement such authorities as 

necessary. 

The Air Conservation Law, 643.090.1, 

RSMo authorizes the MACC or the 

director of MDNR to declare an 

emergency where the ambient air, ‘‘due 

to meteorological conditions and a 

buildup of air contaminants’’ in 

Missouri, may present an ‘‘emergency 

risk to the public health, safety, or 

welfare.’’ The MACC or director may, 

with the written approval of the 

governor, by order prohibit, restrict or 

condition all sources of air 

contaminants contributing to the 

emergency condition, during such 

periods of time necessary to alleviate or 

lessen the effects of the emergency 

condition. The statute also enables the 

MACC to promulgate implementing 

regulations. Even in the absence of an 

emergency condition, 643.090.2, RSMo 

also authorizes the MACC or the 

director to issue ‘‘cease and desist’’ 

orders to any specific person who is 

either engaging or may engage in 

activities which involve a significant 

risk of air contamination or who is 

discharging into the ambient air any air 

contaminant, including Pb, and such 

activity or discharge presents a clear 

and present danger to public health or 

welfare. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–1.010 

‘‘General Organization’’ enlists the 

MACC to develop, and the director to 

enact, air pollution emergency alert 

procedures. 

Based on EPA’s experience to date 

with the Pb NAAQS and designated Pb 

nonattainment areas, EPA expects that 

such an event would be unlikely and, if 

it were to occur, would be the result of 

a malfunction or other emergency 

situation at a relatively large source of 

Pb. Accordingly, EPA believes that the 

central components of a contingency 

plan would be to reduce emissions from 

the source at issue (if necessary, by 

curtailing operations) and public 

communication as needed. EPA believes 

that Missouri’s statutes referenced above 

provide the requisite authority to the 

MACC and the director of MDNR to 

address such situations. 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in that 

submission or referenced in Missouri’s 

SIP, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP 

adequately addresses section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and 

is proposing to approve this element of 

the December 20, 2011, submission. 

(H) Future SIP revisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(H) requires states to have the 

authority to revise their SIPs in response 

to changes in the NAAQS, availability of 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 32209 

improved methods for attaining the 

NAAQS, or in response to an EPA 

finding that the SIP is substantially 

inadequate to attain the NAAQS. 

In addition to the MACC’s general 

enabling authority in 643.050, RSMo of 

the Air Conservation Law, discussed 

previously in element (A), 643.055.1, 

RSMo grants the MACC and MDNR 

authority to promulgate rules and 

regulations to establish standards and 

guidelines, to ensure that Missouri 

complies with the provisions of the 

Federal CAA. Missouri’s rule 10 CSR 

10–1.010(2) ‘‘General Organization’’ 

grants similar powers to MDNR. This 

includes the authority to submit SIP 

revisions to the EPA for approval as 

necessary to respond to a revised 

NAAQS and to respond to EPA findings 

of substantial inadequacy (e.g., 71 FR 

46860 (August 15, 2006), in which EPA 

approved Missouri rules promulgated in 

response to EPA’s NOX SIP call for 

Missouri and other states). 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Missouri’s SIP, EPA 

believes that Missouri has adequate 

authority to address section 110(a)(2)(H) 

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is 

proposing to approve this element of the 

December 20, 2011, submission. 

(I) Nonattainment areas: Section 

110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of 

a plan or plan revision for areas 

designated as nonattainment areas, 

states must meet applicable 

requirements of part D of the CAA, 

relating to SIP requirements for 

designated nonattainment areas. 

As noted earlier, EPA does not expect 

infrastructure SIP submissions to 

address subsection (I). The specific SIP 

submissions for designated 

nonattainment areas, as required under 

CAA title I, part D, are subject to 

different submission schedules than 

those for section 110 infrastructure 

elements. Instead, EPA will take action 

on part D attainment plan SIP 

submissions through a separate 

rulemaking governed by the 

requirements for nonattainment areas, 

as described in part D. 

(J) Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, PSD and 

visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

requires SIPs to meet the applicable 

requirements of the following CAA 

provisions: (1) Section 121, relating to 

interagency consultation regarding 

certain CAA requirements; (2) section 

127, relating to public notification of 

NAAQS exceedances and related issues; 

and (3) part C of the CAA, relating to 

prevention of significant deterioration of 

air quality and visibility protection. 

(1) With respect to interagency 

consultation, the SIP should provide a 

process for consultation with 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 RSMo of the Missouri Air 

Conservation Law requires the MACC to 

consult and cooperate with other 

Federal and state agencies, and with 

political subdivisions, for the purpose of 

prevention, abatement, and control of 

air pollution. Missouri also has 

appropriate interagency consultation 

provisions in its preconstruction permit 

program. For instance, Missouri rule 10 

CSR 10–6.060(12)(B)2.E ‘‘Construction 

Permits Required’’ requires that when a 

permit goes out for public comment, the 

permitting authority must provide 

notice to local air pollution control 

agencies, the chief executive of the city 

and county where the installation or 

modification would be located, any 

comprehensive regional land use 

planning agency, any state air program 

permitting authority, and any Federal 

Land Manager whose lands may be 

affected by emissions from the 

installation or modification. 

(2) With respect to the requirements 

for public notification in section 127, 

the infrastructure SIP should provide 

citations to regulations in the SIP 

requiring the air agency to regularly 

notify the public of instances or areas in 

which any NAAQS are exceeded; advise 

the public of the health hazard 

associated with such exceedances; and 

enhance public awareness of measures 

that can prevent such exceedances and 

of ways in which the public can 

participate in the regulatory and other 

efforts to improve air quality. Missouri 

rule 10 CSR 10–6.130 ‘‘Controlling 

Emissions During Episodes of High Air 

Pollution Potential,’’ discussed 

previously in connection with the 

state’s authority to address emergency 

episodes, contains provisions for public 

notification of various air pollutant 

levels, and measures which can be taken 

by the public to reduce concentrations. 

In addition, information regarding air 

pollution and related issues, is provided 

on an MDNR Web site, http://

www.dnr.missouri.gov/env/apcp/

index.html. 

(3) With respect to the applicable 

requirements of part C of the CAA, 

relating to prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality and visibility 

protection, as noted in above under 

element (C), the Missouri SIP meets the 

PSD requirements, incorporating the 

Federal rule by reference. With respect 

to the visibility component of section 

110(a)(2)(J), EPA recognizes that states 

are subject to visibility and regional 

haze program requirements under part C 

of the CAA. However, when EPA 

establishes or revises a NAAQS, these 

visibility and regional haze 

requirements under part C do not 

change. EPA believes that there are no 

new visibility protection requirements 

under part C as a result of a revised 

NAAQS. Therefore, there are no newly 

applicable visibility protection 

obligations pursuant to element J after 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Missouri’s SIP, EPA 

believes that Missouri has met the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in 

the state and is therefore proposing to 

approve this element of the December 

20, 2011, submission. 

(K) Air quality and modeling/data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs 

provide for performing air quality 

modeling, as prescribed by EPA, to 

predict the effects on ambient air quality 

of any emissions of any NAAQS 

pollutant, and for submission of such 

data to EPA upon request. 

Missouri has authority to conduct air 

quality modeling and report the results 

of such modeling to EPA. Section 

643.050 of the Air Conservation Law 

provides the MACC with the general 

authority to develop a general 

comprehensive plan to prevent, abate 

and control air pollution. Missouri’s Air 

Conservation Law 643.055, RSMo grants 

the MACC the authority to promulgate 

rules and regulations to establish 

standards and guidelines to ensure that 

Missouri is in compliance with the 

provisions of the CAA. As an example 

of regulatory authority to perform 

modeling for purposes of determining 

NAAQS compliance, Missouri rule 10 

CSR 10–1.010(3)(B)4.D ‘‘General 

Organization’’ establishes the air quality 

modeling and air quality analysis 

functions for the Air Program. In 

addition, Missouri regulation 10 CSR 

10–6.060(12)(F) ‘‘Construction Permits 

Required’’ requires the use of EPAapproved 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32210 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

may be utilized in modeling analyses. 

These data are available to any member 

of the public, upon request (10 CSR 10– 

6.110(3)(D)). 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Missouri’s SIP, EPA 

believes that Missouri has the adequate 

infrastructure needed to address section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and 

is proposing to approve this element of 

the December 20, 2011, submission. 

(L) Permitting Fees: Section 

110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require 

each major stationary source to pay 

permitting fees to the permitting 

authority, as a condition of any permit 

required under the CAA, to cover the 

cost of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and, if the 

permit is issued, the costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

of the permit. The fee requirement 

applies until a fee program established 

by the state pursuant to Title V of the 

CAA, relating to operating permits, is 

approved by EPA. 

Section 643.079 of the Air 

Conservation Law provides authority for 

MDNR to collect permit fees, including 

Title V fees. EPA approved Missouri’s 

Title V program in May 1997 (see 62 FR 

26405). The permit application fees are 

codified in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.065 ‘‘Operating Permits.’’ In addition 

to the fees directly related to 

implementation and enforcement of 

Missouri’s Title V program, additional 

construction permit fees are assessed 

and collected per state rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.060 ‘‘Construction Permits Required.’’ 

EPA reviews the Missouri Title V 

program, including Title V fee structure, 

separately from this proposed action. 

Because the Title V program and 

associated fees legally are not part of the 

SIP, the infrastructure SIP action we are 

proposing today does not preclude EPA 

from taking future action regarding 

Missouri’s Title V program. 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Missouri’s SIP, EPA 

believes that the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(L) are met and is proposing to 

approve this element of the December 

20, 2011, submission. 

(M) Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities: Section 

110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to provide for 

consultation and participation by local 

political subdivisions affected by the 

SIP. 

Missouri’s Air Conservation Law 

643.050.3, RSMo requires that the 

MACC encourage political subdivisions 

to handle air pollution control problems 

within their respective jurisdictions to 

the extent possible and practicable, and 

to provide assistance to those political 

subdivisions. The MACC is also 

required to advise, consult and 

cooperate with other political 

subdivisions in Missouri. The Air 

Conservation Law 643.140, RSMo, 

provides the mechanism for local 

political subdivisions to enact and 

enforce their own air pollution control 

regulations, subject to the oversight of 

the MACC. As directed in subparagraph 

(2)(D)4.B. of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 

1.010 ‘‘General Organization,’’ the Air 

Quality Planning Section must meet all 

‘‘public participation requirements of 

state and Federal laws for rulemaking 

and SIP revisions.’’ The MDNR’s Air 

Pollution Control Program has a signed 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

with Kansas City and Springfield/ 

Greene County and a draft agreement 

with St. Louis County (to be finalized) 

which outlines the responsibilities for 

air quality activities with each local 

agency. In addition, MDNR participates 

in community meetings and consults 

with and participates in interagency 

consultation groups such as the 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations in 

both Kansas City and St. Louis. In 

Kansas City, MDNR works with the 

Mid-America Regional Council, and in 

St. Louis, MDNR works with East-West 

Gateway Coordinating Council of 

Governments. 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Missouri’s SIP, EPA 

believes that Missouri has the adequate 

infrastructure needed to address section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

and is proposing to approve this 

element of the December 20, 2011, 

submission. 

V. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

December 20, 2011, infrastructure SIP 

submission from Missouri which 

addresses the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable 

to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

following infrastructure elements, or 

portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). As discussed 

in each applicable section of this 

rulemaking, EPA is not proposing action 

on section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment 

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part 

D and on the visibility protection 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

this submission or referenced in 

Missouri’s SIP, EPA believes that 

Missouri has the infrastructure to 

address all applicable required elements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except 

otherwise noted) to ensure that the 2008 

Pb NAAQS are implemented in the 

state. 

We are hereby soliciting comment on 

this proposed action. Final rulemaking 

will occur after consideration of any 

comments. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the terms of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and is therefore not subject to 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011). 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 32211 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rulemaking does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by section 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 16, 2014. 

Mark Hague, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12912 Filed 6–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012] 

RIN 2127–AK95 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Child Restraint Systems— 

Side Impact Protection 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document reopens the 

comment period for a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published 

January 28, 2014. The NPRM proposes 

to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ‘‘Child 

restraint systems,’’ to adopt side impact 

performance requirements for all child 

restraint systems designed to seat 

children in a weight range that includes 

weights up to 18 kilograms (kg) (40 

pounds (lb)). The original comment 

period closed April 28, 2014. In 

response to a petition from the Juvenile 

Products Manufacturers Association, 

NHTSA is reopening the comment 

closing date for 120 days. 

DATES: The comment closing date for 

the January 28, 2014 NPRM (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2014–0012; 79 FR 4570) is 

October 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012 by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, please mention the docket 

number of the January 28, 2014 NPRM. 

You may also call the Docket at 202– 

366–9324. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the discussion under the Public 

Participation heading of the January 28, 

2014 NPRM (79 FR 4570). Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may call Cristina 

Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards, (Telephone: 202–366–6345) 

(Fax: 202–493–2990). For legal issues, 

you may call Deirdre Fujita, Office of 

Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202–366– 

2992) (Fax: 202–366–3820). Mailing 

address: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 28, 2014, NHTSA published an 

NPRM proposing to amend FMVSS No. 

213, ‘‘Child restraint systems,’’ to adopt 

side impact performance requirements 

for all child restraint systems (CRSs) 

designed to seat children in a weight 

range that includes weights up to 18 kg 

(40 lb) (79 FR 4570). Frontal and side 

crashes account for most child occupant 

fatalities. Standard No. 213 currently 

requires child restraints to meet a 

dynamic test simulating a 48.3 

kilometers per hour (30 miles per hour) 

frontal impact. The January 2014 

proposal would require an additional 

test in which such child restraints must 

protect the child occupant in a dynamic 

test simulating a full-scale vehicle-tovehicle side impact. 

Under the NPRM, child restraints 

would be tested with a newly-developed 

instrumented side impact test dummy 

representing a 3-year-old child, called 

the ‘‘Q3s’’ dummy, and with a wellestablished 12-month-old child test 

dummy (the Child Restraint Air Bag 

Interaction (CRABI) dummy). NHTSA 

published an NPRM proposing to 

amend our regulation for 

anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs), 

49 CFR Part 572, to add specifications 

for the Q3s (78 FR 69944; November 21, 

2013). The CRABI dummy’s 

specifications are already incorporated 

into 49 CFR Part 572, in Subpart R. 

NHTSA issued the January 28, 2014 

NPRM to ensure that child restraints 

subject to the rulemaking effectively 

restrain the child occupant in a side 

impact, prevent harmful head contact 

with an intruding vehicle door or child 

restraint structure, and attenuate crash 

forces to the child’s head and chest. The 

NPRM also responded to a statutory 

mandate set forth in the ‘‘Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act’’ 

(July 6, 2012), directing the Secretary of 

Transportation to issue a final rule 

amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve 

the protection of children seated in 

child restraint systems during side 

impacts. 

NHTSA provided a three-month 

comment period for the January 2014 

proposal, which closed April 28, 2014. 

Petition 

The Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (JPMA) submitted a March 

7, 2014 petition to extend the comment 

period for the January 2014 NPRM 120 

days ‘‘to allow JPMA member 

companies the opportunity to have 

access to the proposed Q3s 3-year-old 

side impact ATD for use in their 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS