[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32200-32211]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12912]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0290, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

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

I. What is being addressed in this document?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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);

     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


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24659-24660]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2016-0023]

Extension of a Previously Approved Collection: Public Charters

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) invites the general public, industry
and other governmental parties to comment on Public Charters. The pre-
existing information collection request was previously approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-
2016-0023] through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Reather Flemmings<PHONE_NUMBER>)
and Mr. Brett Kruger<PHONE_NUMBER>), Office of the Secretary, Office of
International Aviation, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing/Special Authorities
Division-X44, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2106-0005.
    Title: Public Charters, 14 CFR part 380.
    Form Numbers: 4532, 4533, 4534, 4535.
    Type of Review: Extension of a Previously Approved Collection: The
current OMB inventory has not changed.
    Abstract: 14 CFR part 380 establishes regulations embodying the
Department's terms and conditions for Public Charter operators to
conduct air transportation using direct air carriers. Public Charter
operators arrange transportation for groups of people on chartered
aircraft. This arrangement is often less expensive for the travelers
than individually buying a ticket. Part 380 exempts charter operators
from certain provisions of the U.S. code in order that they may provide
this service. A primary goal of Part 380 is to seek protection for the
consumer. Accordingly, the rule stipulates that the charter operator
must file evidence (a prospectus--consisting of OST Forms 4532, 4533,
4534, 4535, and supporting financial documents) with the Department for
each charter program certifying that it has entered into a binding
contract with a direct air carrier to provide air transportation and
that it has also entered into agreements with Department-approved
financial institutions for the protection of charter participants'
funds. The prospectus must be accepted by the Department prior to the
operator's advertising, selling or operating the charter. If the
prospectus information were not collected it would be extremely
difficult to assure compliance with agency rules and to assure that
public security and other consumer protection requirements were in
place for the traveling public. The information collected is available
for public inspection (unless the respondent specifically requests
confidential treatment). Part 380 does not provide any assurances of
confidentiality.
    Burden Statement: Completion of all forms in a prospectus can be
accomplished in approximately two hours (30 minutes per form) for new
filers and one hour for amendments (existing filings). The forms are
simplified and request only basic information about the proposed
programs and the private sector filer. The respondent can submit a
filing to operate for up to one year and include as many flights as
desired, in most cases. If an operator chooses to make changes to a
previously approved charter operation, then the operator is required by
regulations to file revisions to its original prospectus.
    Respondents: Private Sector: Air carriers; tour operators; the
general public (including groups and individuals, corporations and
Universities or Colleges, etc.).
    Number of Respondents: 245.
    Number of Responses: 1,782.
    Total Annual Burden: 891.
    Frequency of Responses:
    245 (respondents) x 4 = 980.
    401 (amendments from the same respondents) x 2 = 802.
    Total estimated responses: 980 + 802 = 1,782.
    The frequency of response is dependent upon whether the operator is
requesting a new program or amending an existing prospectus. Variations
occur

due to the respondents' criteria. On average four responses (forms
4532, 4533, 4534 and/or 4535) are required for filing new prospectuses
and two of the responses (forms) are required for amendments. The
separate hour burden estimate is as follows:
    Total Annual Burden: 891 hours.
    Approximately 1,782 (responses) x 0.50 (per form) = 891.
    Public Comments Invited: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, by
the use of electronic means, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to
this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB
approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Benjamin J. Taylor,
Director, Office of International Aviation.
[FR Doc. 2023-08406 Filed 4-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P