
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21281-21295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08399]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2013-0208; FRL-9800-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing action on four Missouri State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) submissions. First, EPA is proposing to approve portions of 
two SIP submissions from the State of Missouri addressing the 
applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 and 2006 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5). The CAA requires that each state adopt and 
submit a SIP to support implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 
each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly 
referred to as ``infrastructure'' SIPs. The infrastructure requirements 
are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's 
air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's 
responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is also proposing to approve two 
additional SIP submissions from Missouri, one addressing the Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in Missouri, and another 
addressing the requirements applicable to any board or body which 
approves permits or enforcement orders of the CAA, both of which 
support requirements associated with infrastructure SIPs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2013-0208, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: bhesania.amy@epa.gov.
    3. Mail: Ms. Amy Bhesania, Air Planning and Development Branch, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air and Waste 
Management Division, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Ms. Amy 
Bhesania, Air Planning and Development Branch,

[[Page 21282]]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air and Waste 
Management Division, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2013-0208. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or email information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and should be 
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 
66219 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these 
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours 
in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Bhesania, Air Planning and 
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7147; fax number: (913) 551-7065; email address: bhesania.amy@epa.gov.

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

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. What is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP?
III. What elements are applicable under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
IV. What is the scope of this rulemaking as it relates to 
infrastructure SIPs?
V. What is EPA's evaluation of how the state addressed the relevant 
elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
VI. What are the requirements of the PM2.5 PSD Increment-
SILs-SMC Rule for PSD SIP Programs?
VII. How Does the September 5, 2012 Missouri PSD submission satisfy 
the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC rule?
VIII. What are the additional provisions of the September 5, 2012 
SIP submission that EPA is proposing to take action on?
IX. What action is EPA proposing?
X. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    In today's proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing action on four 
Missouri SIP submissions. EPA received the first submission on February 
27, 2007, addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements relating to 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA received the second submission on 
December 28, 2009, addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements 
relating to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In a previous action EPA 
approved section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II)--Interstate and 
international transport requirements of Missouri's February 27, 2007, 
SIP submission for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (72 FR 25975, May 8, 
2007); and EPA disapproved section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate and 
international transport requirements of Missouri's December 28, 2009, 
SIP submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 43156, July 
20, 2011). Therefore, in today's action, we are not proposing to act on 
these portions since they have already been acted upon by EPA. If EPA 
takes final action as proposed, we will have acted on both the February 
27, 2007, and the December 28, 2009, submissions in their entirety 
excluding those provisions that are not within the scope of today's 
rulemaking as identified in section IV for both the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The third submission was received by EPA on September 5, 2012. This 
submission revises Missouri's rule in Title 10, Division 10, Chapter 
6.060 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR) (10 CSR 10-6.060) 
``Construction Permits Required'' to implement certain elements of the 
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter 
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant 
Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' 
rule (75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). In addition, this rule amendment 
defers the application of PSD permitting requirements to carbon dioxide 
emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources.
    EPA received the fourth submission on August 8, 2012. This 
submission addresses the conflict of interest provisions in section 128 
of the CAA as it relates to infrastructure SIPs described in element E 
below.

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

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, in part, that states make a 
SIP submission to EPA to implement, maintain and enforce each of the 
NAAQS promulgated by EPA after reasonable notice and public hearings. 
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that such 
infrastructure SIP submissions must address. SIPs meeting the 
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by 
states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. 
These SIPs submissions are commonly referred to as ``infrastructure'' 
SIPs.

III. What elements are applicable under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance to address infrastructure 
SIP elements required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ On September 25, 2009, EPA 
issued guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements required under 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS.\2\ EPA will address these

[[Page 21283]]

elements below under the following headings: (A) Emission limits and 
other control measures; (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system; 
(C) Program for enforcement of control measures (PSD, New Source Review 
for nonattainment areas, and construction and modification of all 
stationary sources); (D) Interstate and international transport \3\; 
(E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight; (F) 
Stationary source monitoring system; (G) Emergency authority; (H) 
Future SIP revisions; (I) Nonattainment areas; (J) Consultation with 
government officials, public notification, prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD), and visibility protection; (K) Air quality and 
modeling/data; (L) Permitting fees; and (M) Consultation/participation 
by affected local entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Guidance on SIP 
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-
hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards,'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, 
October 2, 2007 (2007 Memo).
    \2\ William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Guidance on SIP 
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS),'' Memorandum to EPA Regional Air Division 
Directors, Regions I-X, September 25, 2009 (2009 Memo).
    \3\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is the scope of this rulemaking as it relates to 
infrastructure SIPs?

    The applicable infrastructure SIP requirements are contained in 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. EPA is proposing action on each 
of the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through section 
110(a)(2)(M), as applicable, except for the elements detailed in the 
following paragraphs.
    This rulemaking will not cover four substantive issues that are not 
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i) 
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of 
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to 
the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); 
(ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or 
``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP 
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without 
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA 
(``director's discretion''); (iii) existing provisions for minor source 
New Source Review (NSR) programs that may be inconsistent with the 
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such 
programs (``minor source NSR''); and, (iv) existing provisions for PSD 
programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's 
December 31, 2002, ``Final NSR Improvement Rule'' (67 FR 80186), as 
amended by the ``NSR Reform'' final rulemaking on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 
32526). Instead, EPA has indicated that it has other authority to 
address any such existing SIP defects in other rulemakings, as 
appropriate. A detailed rationale for why these four substantive issues 
are not part of the scope of infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be 
found at 76 FR 41075, 41076-41079 (July 13, 2011). See also 77 FR 
38239, 38240-38243 (June 27, 2012); and 77 FR 46361, 46362-46365 
(August 3, 2012).
    In addition to the four substantive areas above, EPA is not acting 
in this action on section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan 
Revisions Under Part D and on the visibility protection portion of 
section 110(a)(2)(J). A detailed rationale for not acting on elements 
of these requirements is discussed within each applicable section of 
this rulemaking. As described above in section I, EPA is also not 
acting on portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Interstate and 
international transport as final actions have already been taken on 
portions of this element for both the Missouri 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submissions.
    Finally, as part of this action, EPA is evaluating the state's 
compliance with the new PSD requirements promulgated in the 
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5).'' (73 FR 28321, 
May 16, 2008) and the PM2.5 Increment, SILs and SMC rule (75 
FR 64864, October 20, 2010). Regarding the May 16, 2008 rule, on 
January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, 
in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), 
issued a judgment that remanded two of EPA's rules implementing the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2008 rule. The Court ordered 
EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with 
this opinion.'' Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1 of the CAA 
establishes additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment 
areas. The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the Court's decision 
promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in 
both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/
unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of subpart 4 only 
pertain to nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the portions of 
the 2008 rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment 
and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the Court's opinion. 
Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD 
requirements promulgated in the 2008 rule in order to comply with the 
Court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's approval of Missouri's 
infrastructure SIP as to Elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), with 
respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation 
rule, does not conflict with the Court's opinion.
    The Court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR 
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also does not 
affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure SIP submission. As 
described above, EPA interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area 
requirements, including requirements associated with a nonattainment 
NSR program, from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after 
adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically 
referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which 
states must submit by the dates statutorily prescribed under part D 
within subparts 2 through 5, extending as far as ten years following 
designations for some elements. Given these separate applicable SIP 
submission dates, EPA concludes that these specific requirements are 
outside the scope of the infrastructure SIPs.

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

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new PM2.5 primary and 
secondary NAAQS (62 FR 38652). On October 17, 2006, EPA made further 
revisions to the primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 (71 
FR 61144). On February 27, 2007, EPA Region 7 received Missouri's 
infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 
EPA determined this SIP submission complete on March 27, 2007. On 
December 28, 2009, EPA Region 7 received Missouri's infrastructure SIP 
submission for the 2006 PM2.5 standard. This SIP submission 
became complete as a matter of law on June 28, 2010. EPA has reviewed 
both of Missouri's infrastructure SIP submissions and the relevant 
statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those 
submissions or referenced in Missouri's SIP.
    (A) Emission limits and other control measures: Section 
110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and 
other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance 
and other related matters as

[[Page 21284]]

needed to implement, maintain and enforce each NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 1997 or 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Those SIP provisions are due as part of each 
state's attainment plan, and will be addressed separately from the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). In the context of an 
infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP 
provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether 
the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the 
implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Missouri's Air Conservation Law and Air Pollution 
Control Rules authorize the Missouri Department of Natural Resources 
(MDNR) to regulate air quality and implement air quality control 
regulations. Specifically, Missouri Revised Statutes (RsMO) section 
643.030 authorizes the ``Air Conservation Commission of the State of 
Missouri'' (MACC) to control air pollution, which is defined in RsMO 
section 643.020 to include air contaminants in quantities, of 
characteristics and of a duration which cause or contribute to injury 
to human, plant, or animal life or health or to property. RsMO section 
643.050 authorizes the MACC to classify and identify air contaminants.
    Missouri's rule 10 CSR 10-6.010 ``Ambient Air Quality Standards'' 
adopts the 1997 PM2.5 annual standard and the 2006 
PM2.5 24-hour standard as promulgated by EPA. In addition, 
10 CSR 10-6.040 ``Reference Methods'' incorporates by reference the 
relevant appendices in 40 CFR part 50 for measuring and calculating the 
concentration of PM2.5 in the atmosphere to determine 
whether the standards have been met. Therefore, PM2.5 is an 
air contaminant which may be regulated under Missouri law.
    RsMO section 643.050 of the Air Conservation Law authorizes the 
MACC, among other things, to regulate the use of equipment known to be 
a source of air contamination and to establish emissions limitations 
for air contaminant sources. Missouri also establishes timetables for 
compliance in its rules, as appropriate. Appendix A of the state's 
infrastructure SIP submission for both the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS contains a link to the Missouri Air 
Conservation Law and Appendix B of each submission contains a link to 
Missouri's state rules.
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and 
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions 
or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has 
statutory and regulatory authority to establish additional emissions 
limitations and other measures, as necessary to address attainment and 
maintenance of the PM2.5 standards. Therefore, EPA believes 
that the Missouri SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS \5\ and is 
proposing to approve the February 27, 2007, submission regarding the 
1997 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements and the December 
28, 2009, submission regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 
SIP requirements for this element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For the reasons stated earlier, EPA is not addressing SSM 
and director's discretion provisions in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 
110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for 
establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collection 
and analysis of ambient air quality data, and making these data 
available to EPA upon request.
    To address this element, RsMO section 643.050 of the Air 
Conservation Law provides the enabling authority necessary for Missouri 
to fulfill the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B). The Air Pollution 
Control Program and Air Quality Analysis Section, within MDNR, 
implement these requirements. Along with their other duties, the 
monitoring program collects air monitoring data, quality assures the 
results, and reports the data.
    MDNR submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA for approval, 
including its PM2.5 monitoring network, as required by 40 
CFR 58.10. Prior to submissions to EPA, Missouri makes the plans 
available for public review on MDNR's Web site at (http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/monitoring/monitoringnetworkplan.pdf). MDNR 
also conducts five-year monitoring network assessments, including the 
PM2.5 monitoring network, as required by 40 CFR 58.10(d). On 
January 10, 2013, EPA approved Missouri's 2012 Ambient Air Quality 
Monitoring Plan and on October 27, 2010, EPA approved Missouri's Five-
Year Air Monitoring Network Assessment. Missouri 10 CSR 10-6.040(4)(L) 
``Reference Methods'' requires that ambient concentrations of 
PM2.5 be measured in accordance with the applicable Federal 
regulations in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix L, or an equivalent method as 
approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR part 53. Furthermore, Missouri 
submits air quality data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) system in a 
timely manner, pursuant to the provisions of the state's grant work 
plans developed in conjunction with EPA.
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and 
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions 
or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP 
meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 and 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is proposing to approve the February 
27, 2007, submission regarding the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure 
SIP requirements and the December 28, 2009, submission regarding the 
2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements for this element.
    (C) Program for enforcement of control measures (PSD, New Source 
Review for nonattainment areas, and construction and modification of 
all stationary sources): Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to 
include the following three elements in the SIP: (1) A program 
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures described in section 
110(a)(2)(A); (2) a program for the regulation of the modification and 
construction of stationary sources as necessary to protect the 
applicable NAAQS (i.e., state-wide permitting of minor sources); and 
(3) a permit program to meet the major source permitting requirements 
of the CAA (for areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for 
the NAAQS in question).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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, RsMO section 643.080 of the Air 
Conservation Law authorizes MDNR to issue compliance orders for 
violations of the Air Conservation Law, rules promulgated thereunder 
(which includes rules comprising the Missouri SIP), and conditions of 
any permits (which includes permits under SIP-approved permitting 
programs). RsMO section 643.085 authorizes MDNR to assess 
administrative penalties for violations of the statute, regulations, 
permit conditions, or administrative orders. RsMO section 643.151 
authorizes the MACC to initiate civil

[[Page 21285]]

actions for these violations, and to seek penalties and injunctive 
relief to prevent any further violation. RsMO section 643.191 provides 
for criminal penalties for known violations of the statute, standards, 
permit conditions, or regulations promulgated thereunder.
    (2) Minor New Source Review. Section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires 
that the SIP include measures to regulate construction and modification 
of stationary sources to protect the NAAQS. With respect to smaller 
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 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards 
with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to 
include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and 
construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the 
NAAQS are achieved. In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove the state's existing minor NSR program to the extent that it 
is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has 
maintained that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP 
submissions correct any defects in existing EPA-approved provisions of 
minor NSR programs in order for EPA to approve the infrastructure SIP 
for element (C) (e.g., 76 FR 41076-41079). EPA believes that a number 
of states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the 
existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with 
states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory 
provisions for the program. The statutory requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing minor 
NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be time to revisit the regulatory 
requirements for this program to give the states an appropriate level 
of flexibility to design a program that meets their particular air 
quality concerns, while assuring reasonable consistency across the 
country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor 
sources.
    (3) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. 
Missouri also has a program approved by EPA as meeting the requirements 
of part C, relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air 
quality. In order to demonstrate that Missouri has met this sub-
element, this PSD program must cover requirements for not just 
PM2.5, but for all other regulated NSR pollutants as well. 
To implement the PSD permitting component of section 110(a)(2)(C) for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, states were required to 
submit the necessary SIP revisions to EPA by May 16, 2011, and July 20, 
2012, pursuant to EPA's NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule (2008 
NSR Rule), (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) and EPA's PM2.5 
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, (75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). As described 
in section IV above, the January 4, 2013, court decision remanding 2008 
rule does not impact the EPA's action as to this element.
    The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPs to 
address sources that emit direct PM2.5 and other pollutants 
that contribute to secondary PM2.5 formation. One of these 
requirements is for NSR permits to address pollutants responsible for 
the secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise known as 
precursors. In the 2008 NSR Rule, the EPA identified precursors to 
PM2.5 for the PSD program to include sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) (unless the state 
demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates 
that NOX emissions in an area are not a significant 
contributor to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations). 
See 73 FR 28325. The 2008 NSR Rule also specified that volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) are not considered to be precursors to 
PM2.5 in the PSD program unless the state demonstrates to 
the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of 
VOCs in an area are significant contributors to that area's ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations. The specific references to 
SO2, NOX, and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 
PM2.5 formation are currently codified at 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). The deadline for 
states to submit SIP revisions to their PSD programs incorporating 
these new requirements was May 16, 2011 (73 FR 28341).
    As part of identifying pollutants that are precursors to 
PM2.5, the 2008 NSR Rule also revised the definition of 
``significant'' as it relates to a net emissions increase or the 
potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) define ``significant'' for 
PM2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tons per 
year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 
tpy of NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the 
Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX 
emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's 
ambient PM2.5 concentrations).
    Another provision of the 2008 NSR Rule requires states to account 
for gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as 
condensables, for applicability determinations and in establishing 
emission limits for PM2.5 and PM10\7\ in NSR 
permits. EPA provided that states were required to account for 
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables beginning on or after 
January 1, 2011. This requirement is currently codified in 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states' 
PSD programs incorporating the inclusion of condensables were required 
to be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 (73 FR at 28341).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as ``coarse'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' in the PSD provisions 
of the 2008 rule inadvertently required states to also account for the 
condensable PM fraction with respect to one indicator of PM referred to 
as ``particular matter emissions.'' The term ``particulate matter 
emissions'' includes PM2.5 and PM10 particles as 
well as larger particles, and is an indicator for PM that has long been 
used for measuring PM under various New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) (40 CFR part 60).\8\ A

[[Page 21286]]

similar provision addressing condensables was added to the 
Nonattainment NSR SIP provisions of the 2008 NSR Rule but does not 
include a requirement to account for ``particulate matter (PM) 
emissions'' in all cases (40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D)). On October 
12, 2012, EPA finalized a rulemaking to amend the definition of 
``regulated NSR pollutant'' promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 
Rule regarding the PM condensable provision currently at 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(49)(i)(a), 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a), and EPA's Emissions Offset 
Interpretative Ruling. See 77 FR 65107. The rulemaking removes the 
inadvertent requirement in the 2008 NSR Rule that the measurement of 
condensables be generally included as part of the measurement and 
regulation of ``particulate matter emissions.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In addition to the NSPS for PM, it is noted that states 
regulated ``particulate matter emissions'' for many years in their 
SIPs for PM, and the same indicator has been used as a surrogate for 
determining compliance with certain standards contained in 40 CFR 
part 63, regarding National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants.
    \9\ The change finalized in that action does not mean that EPA 
has entirely exempted the inclusion of the condensable PM fraction 
as part of accounting for ``particulate matter emissions.'' It may 
be necessary for PSD sources to count the condensable PM fraction 
with regard to ``particulate matter emissions'' where either the 
applicable NSPS compliance test includes the condensable PM fraction 
or the applicable implementation plan requires the condensable PM 
fraction to be counted. See 77 FR 65112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19602), EPA proposed to approve Missouri's 
request to amend the SIP to meet the 2008 PM2.5 NAAQS 
implementation requirements of the May 16, 2008, NSR PM2.5 
Rule as described above. In this SIP revision, Missouri adopted rule 
revisions to establish (1) the requirement for NSR permits to address 
directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; and (2) 
significant emission rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor 
pollutants (SO2 and NOX), among other revisions. 
With respect to the condensable PM issue described above, Missouri has 
addressed this through the SIP submission received by EPA on September 
5, 2012, and which is being proposed for approval in today's action, as 
discussed in more detail below. Therefore, EPA has proposed to 
incorporate into Missouri's SIP all of the provisions required by the 
2008 PM2.5 implementation rule that are applicable to 
element C of infrastructure SIPs.
    With respect to the 2010 PM2.5 Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, 
EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the September 5, 2012, 
submission addressing the required PM2.5 increments and 
associated implementing regulations as part of today's proposed 
rulemaking. A further analysis of how Missouri meets the requirements 
of the 2010 rule is described below in sections VI and VII.
    To meet the requirements of element (C), in addition to the 
PM2.5 PSD elements that must be incorporated in to the SIP, 
each state's PSD program must meet applicable requirements for all 
regulated pollutants in PSD permits. For example, if a state lacks 
provisions needed to address NOX as a precursor to ozone, 
the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD 
permitting program for PM2.5 will not be considered to be 
met.
    Relating to ozone, EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement 
Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review 
and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon 
Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 
Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase 2 Rule), was published on November 8, 
2005 (70 FR 71612). Among other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 
obligated states to revise their PSD programs to explicitly identify 
NOX as a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at 71679, and 
71699-71700). This requirement is currently codified in 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(49)(i)(b). On April 16, 2012, EPA finalized a rulemaking to 
approve the provisions into the Missouri SIP which provide that ozone 
precursors (volatile organic compounds--VOC and nitrogen oxides--
NOX) are regulated. See 77 FR 22500. For example, a source 
that is major for NOX is also major for ozone under the 
state's PSD program in rule 10 CSR 10-6.060(8). In addition, rules 10 
CSR 10-6.060(1)(A) and 10-6.060(8)(A) incorporate 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(50)(i)(a) by reference. The latter regulation specifically 
identifies volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides as precursors 
to ozone in all attainment and unclassifiable areas.
    Regarding greenhouse gases (GHG), on June 3, 2010, EPA issued a 
final rule establishing a ``common sense'' approach to addressing GHG 
emissions from stationary sources under the CAA permitting programs. 
The ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse 
Gas Tailoring Rule,'' or ``Tailoring Rule,'' set thresholds for GHG 
emissions that define when permits under the NSR PSD and Title V 
operating permit programs are required for new and existing industrial 
facilities. See 75 FR 31514. Without the new threshold provided by the 
Tailoring Rule, sources with GHG emissions above the statutory 
thresholds (of 100 or 250 tons per year) would be subject to PSD, which 
could have potentially resulted in apartment complexes, strip malls, 
small farms, restaurants, etc. triggering GHG PSD requirements.
    On December 23, 2010, EPA promulgated a subsequent series of rules 
that put the necessary framework in place to ensure that industrial 
facilities can get CAA permits covering their GHG emissions when 
needed, and that facilities emitting GHGs at levels below those 
established in the Tailoring Rule need not obtain CAA permits.\10\ 
Included in this series of rules was EPA's issuance of the ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans,'' referred to as the PSD SIP ``Narrowing Rule'' (75 FR 82536, 
December 30, 2010). The Narrowing Rule limits, or ``narrows,'' EPA's 
approval of PSD programs applied to previously EPA-approved SIP PSD 
programs, including Missouri's, that apply PSD to GHG emissions. The 
Narrowing Rule limited, or ``narrowed,'' EPA's approval of Missouri's 
and other PSD programs so that the SIP provisions that apply PSD to GHG 
emissions increases from sources emitting GHG below the Tailoring Rule 
thresholds were no longer EPA approved, and instead, had the status of 
having been submitted by the state but not yet acted upon by EPA. In 
other words, the Narrowing Rule focused on eliminating the PSD 
obligations under Federal law for sources below the Tailoring Rule 
thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ http://www.epa.gov/NSR/actions.html#2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After EPA adopted the Narrowing Rule, Missouri submitted to EPA, 
and EPA approved in to the Missouri SIP on April 16, 2012, a revision 
that limited PSD applicability to GHG-emitting sources at or above the 
Tailoring Rule thresholds. With this SIP revision, Missouri's PSD 
program conforms to EPA's requirements for PSD programs with respect to 
GHG emissions, and avoids an overwhelming increase in the number of 
required permits and resulting burden on Missouri's permitting 
resources (77 FR 22500, April 16, 2012).
    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the September 5, 2012, 
submission regarding PSD requirements, and relevant statutory and 
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions 
or referenced in Missouri's SIP, with respect to the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve

[[Page 21287]]

the February 27, 2007, submission regarding the 1997 PM2.5 
infrastructure SIP requirements, the December 28, 2009, submission 
regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements, 
and the September 5, 2012, submission regarding the PSD requirements. 
EPA's analysis of the September 5, 2012, submission is provided in 
sections VI and VII below.
    (D) Interstate and international transport:
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include adequate 
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity 
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or 
interfering with maintenance, of any NAAQS in another state. 
Furthermore, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include 
adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions 
activity in one state from interfering with measures required of any 
other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to 
protect visibility. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four requirements 
referred to as prongs 1 through 4. Prongs 1 and 2 are provided at 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); Prongs 3 and 4 are provided at section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    In this notice, we are not proposing to take any actions related to 
the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--
prongs 1 and 2. At this time, there is no SIP submission from Missouri 
relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS pending before the Agency. EPA previously approved the provisions 
of the Missouri SIP submission addressing the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 
standards, into the Missouri SIP (72 FR 25975, May 8, 2007). EPA also 
disapproved the portion of the Missouri SIP submission intended to 
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 43156, July 20, 2011).
    With respect to the PSD requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3, EPA notes that Missouri's satisfaction of 
the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS have been detailed in the section 
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA also notes that the proposed 
action in that section related to PSD is consistent with the proposed 
approval related to PSD for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Therefore, EPA 
is proposing to approve the PSD requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4, states are subject 
to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of 
the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009 Memo \11\ 
states that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP 
addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, 
and an approved SIP addressing regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Guidance on SIP 
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS),'' Memorandum to EPA Regional Air Division 
Directors, Regions I-X, September 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri meets this requirement through EPA-approved provisions 
requiring electric generating units (EGUs) in Missouri to comply with 
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and through the limited approval 
and limited disapproval of Missouri's regional haze SIP. Although 
Missouri's regional haze SIP has not been fully approved, EPA believes 
that the infrastructure SIP submission together with previously 
approved SIP provisions, specifically those provisions that require 
EGUs to comply with CAIR and the additional measures in the regional 
haze SIP addressing best available retrofit technology (BART) and 
reasonable progress requirements for other sources or pollutants, are 
adequate to demonstrate compliance with prong 4; thus, EPA is proposing 
to fully approve this aspect of the submission.
    Missouri's regional haze SIP relied on the previous incorporation 
of CAIR into the EPA-approved SIP for Missouri as an alternative to the 
requirement that regional haze SIPs provide for source-specific BART 
emission limits for SO2 and NOX emissions from 
EGUs. At the time the regional haze SIP was being developed, Missouri's 
reliance on CAIR was fully consistent with EPA's regulations. CAIR, as 
originally promulgated, requires significant reductions in emissions of 
SO2 and NOX to limit the interstate transport of 
these pollutants, and EPA's determination that states could rely on 
CAIR as an alternative to requiring BART for CAIR-subject EGUs had 
specifically been upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 
F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Moreover, the states with Class I areas 
affected by emissions from sources in Missouri had adopted reasonable 
progress goals for visibility protection that were consistent with the 
EGU emission limits resulting from CAIR.
    In 2008, however, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR back to EPA (see 
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). The Court found 
CAIR to be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA (see North 
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), but ultimately 
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur because it found that 
``allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule 
consistent with [the Court's] opinion would at least temporarily 
preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR'' (North Carolina, 
550 F.3d at 1178).
    After the remand of CAIR by the D.C. Circuit and the promulgation 
by EPA of a new rule--Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)--to 
replace CAIR, EPA issued a limited disapproval and Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) for Missouri regional haze SIP (and other 
states' regional haze SIPs that relied similarly on CAIR), which merely 
substituted reliance on CSAPR NOX and SO2 trading 
programs for EGUs for the SIP's reliance on CAIR because EPA believed 
that full approval of the SIP was not appropriate in light of the 
court's remand of CAIR and the uncertain but limited remaining period 
of operation of CAIR (77 FR 33642, June 7, 2012). EPA finalized a 
limited approval of the regional haze SIP, indicating that except for 
its reliance on CAIR, the SIP met CAA requirements for the first 
planning period of the regional haze program (77 FR 38007, June 26, 
2012).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the 
entire SIP submission, even of those parts that are deficient and 
prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA 
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the above-described developments with regard to Missouri's 
regional haze SIP, the situation has changed. In August 2012, the D.C. 
Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR (see EME Homer City v. EPA, 
696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In this decision, the Court ordered EPA to 
``continue administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid 
replacement.'' Thus, EPA has been ordered by the Court to develop a new 
rule, and to continue implementing CAIR in the meantime, and the 
opinion makes clear that after promulgating that new rule EPA must 
provide states an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to implement 
that rule. CAIR thus cannot be replaced until EPA has promulgated a 
final rule through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process; states

[[Page 21288]]

have had an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs; EPA has reviewed the 
SIPs to determine if they can be approved; and EPA has taken action on 
the SIPs, including promulgating a FIP, if appropriate.
    EPA filed a petition for rehearing of the Court's decision on 
CSAPR, which was denied by the D.C. Circuit on January 24, 2013. 
However, based on the current direction from the Court to continue 
administering CAIR, EPA believes that it is appropriate to rely on CAIR 
emission reductions as permanent and enforceable for purposes of 
assessing the adequacy of Missouri's infrastructure SIP with respect to 
prong 4 while a valid replacement rule is developed and until 
implementation plans complying with any new rule are submitted by the 
states and acted upon by EPA or until the court case is resolved in a 
way that provides direction regarding CAIR and CSAPR.
    As neither Missouri nor EPA has taken any action to remove CAIR 
from the Missouri SIP, CAIR remains part of the EPA-approved SIP and 
can be considered in determining whether the SIP as a whole meets the 
requirement of prong 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA is proposing to approve 
the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to prong 4 because 
Missouri's regional haze SIP which EPA has given a limited approval, in 
combination with its SIP provisions to implement CAIR, adequately 
prevent sources in Missouri from interfering with measures adopted by 
other states to protect visibility during the first planning period. 
While EPA is not at this time proposing to change the June 7, 2012, or 
June 26, 2012, limited disapproval and limited approval of Missouri's 
regional haze SIP, EPA expects to propose an appropriate action 
regarding Missouri's regional haze SIP upon final resolution of EME 
Homer City.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also requires that the SIP insure 
compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 of 
the CAA, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, 
respectively.
    Section 126(a) of the CAA requires new or modified sources to 
notify neighboring states of potential impacts from sources within the 
state. Missouri regulations require that affected states receive notice 
prior to the commencement of any construction or modification of a 
source. Missouri's rule 10 CSR 10-6.060(6), ``Construction Permits 
Required'' requires that the review of all PSD permit applications 
follow the procedures of section (12)(A), Appendix A. Appendix A, in 
turn, requires that the permitting authority shall issue a draft permit 
for public comment, with notification to affected states on or before 
the time notice is provided to the public. In addition, no Missouri 
source or sources have been identified by EPA as having any interstate 
impacts under section 126 in any pending actions relating to any air 
pollutant.
    Section 115 of the CAA authorizes EPA to require a state to revise 
its SIP under certain conditions to alleviate international transport 
into another country. There are no final findings under section 115 of 
the CAA against Missouri with respect to any air pollutant. Thus, the 
State's SIP does not need to include any provisions to meet the 
requirements of section 115.
    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and 
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions 
or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the 
adequate infrastructure needed to address sections 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Prongs 3 and 4 and 110 (a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve the 
February 27, 2007, submission regarding the 1997 PM2.5 
infrastructure SIP requirements and the December 28, 2009, submission 
regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements for 
this element.
    (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight: 
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that SIPs provide for the following: (1) 
Necessary assurances that the state (and other entities within the 
state responsible for implementing the SIP) will have adequate 
personnel, funding, and authority under State or local law to implement 
the SIP, and that there are no legal impediments to such 
implementation; (2) requirements that the state comply with the 
requirements relating to state boards, pursuant to section 128 of the 
CAA; and (3) necessary assurances that the state has responsibility for 
ensuring adequate implementation of any plan provision for which it 
relies on local governments or other entities to carry out that portion 
of the plan.
    (1) Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to establish that they 
have adequate personnel, funding and authority. With respect to 
adequate authority, we have previously discussed Missouri's statutory 
and regulatory authority to implement the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS, primarily in the discussion of section 
110(a)(2)(A) above. Neither Missouri nor EPA has identified any legal 
impediments in the State's SIP to implementation of these NAAQS.
    With respect to adequate resources, MDNR asserts that it has 
adequate personnel to implement the SIP. The infrastructure SIP 
submission for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS describes 
the regulations governing the various functions of personnel within the 
Air Pollution Control Program, including the Administration, Technical 
Support (Air Quality Analysis), Planning, Enforcement, and Permit 
Sections of the program (10 CSR 10-1.010(2)(D) ``Ambient Air Quality 
Standards'').
    With respect to funding, the Air Conservation Law requires the MACC 
to establish an annual emissions fee for sources in order to fund the 
reasonable costs of administering various air pollution control 
programs. RsMO section 643.079 of the Air Conservation Law provides for 
the deposit of the fees into various subaccounts (e.g., a subaccount 
for the Title V operating permit program used for Title V 
implementation activities; a subaccount for non-Title V air pollution 
control program activities). The state uses funds in the non-Title V 
subaccounts, along with General Revenue funds and EPA grants under, for 
example, sections 103 and 105 of the CAA, to fund the programs. EPA 
conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate 
resources and funding to, among other things, implement the SIP.
    (2) Conflict of interest provisions--Section 128
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each state SIP meet the 
requirements of section 128, relating to representation on state boards 
and conflicts of interest by members of such boards. Section 128(a)(1) 
requires that any board or body which approves permits or enforcement 
orders under the CAA must have at least a majority of members who 
represent the public interest and do not derive any ``significant 
portion'' of their income from persons subject to permits and 
enforcement orders under the CAA. Section 128(a)(2) requires that 
members of such a board or body, or the head of an agency with similar 
powers, adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest. In 
1978, EPA issued a guidance memorandum recommending ways that states 
could meet the requirements of section 128, including suggested 
interpretations of certain terms in section 128.\13\ EPA has not issued 
further guidance or

[[Page 21289]]

regulations of general applicability on the subject since that time. 
However, EPA has recently proposed certain interpretations of section 
128 as part of its actions on other infrastructure SIPs consistent with 
the statutory requirements (see, e.g., (77 FR 44555, July 30, 2012) and 
(77 FR 66398, November 5, 2012)). We are now proposing these same 
interpretations in relation to the Missouri SIP. On August 8, 2012, EPA 
received Missouri's SIP revision that addresses the section 128 
requirements. In today's action, we are also proposing to approve 
Missouri's August 8, 2012, submission related to sections 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 of the CAA. EPA and Missouri have worked to 
assure that the State's SIP correctly addresses these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Memorandum from David O. Bickart to Regional Air 
Directors, ``Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest 
Requirements of Section 128,'' Suggested Definitions, March 2, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's analysis consisted of review of Missouri's August 8, 2012, 
SIP submission and EPA's additional review of Missouri statutes and 
authorities. The first step in the analysis included identifying 
boards, bodies and persons responsible for approving permits and 
enforcement orders and determining the applicability of the section 128 
requirements to these entities. Section 643.050 of the Air Conservation 
Law authorizes the MACC to approve enforcement orders. In addition, 
Missouri Chapter 1 rule ``General Organization'' (2)(B) gives the 
Director of MDNR the authority to issue orders and act upon permit 
applications. Therefore, at a minimum the MACC must satisfy the 
requirements of sections 128(a)(1) and (2), and as the head of an 
executive agency with similar powers, the Director of MDNR must satisfy 
the requirements of section 128(a)(2).
    Section 128(a)(1) contains two separate requirements applicable to 
any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under 
the CAA. First, a majority of members of the board or body must 
``represent the public interest'' (``public interest'' requirement). 
Second, a majority of members must ``not derive any significant portion 
of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders'' 
(``significant income'' requirement). The specific provisions of 
Missouri's Air Conservation Law submitted as SIP revisions are relevant 
to the requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1).
    With respect to the ``public interest'' requirement, section 
643.040.2 of the Air Conservation Law establishes that the MACC members 
must ``be representative of the general interest of the public.'' With 
respect to the ``significant income'' requirement, both sections 
643.040.2 and 105.450 of Missouri's Air Conservation Law were submitted 
to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. Section 643.040.2 states that ``the 
governor shall not appoint any other person who has a substantial 
interest as defined in 105.450'' in any business entity regulated under 
the Air Conservation Law or any business entity which would be 
regulated under the Air Conservation Law if located in Missouri. 
``Substantial interest,'' in turn, is defined in section 105.450 as 
ownership by the individual, the individual's spouse, or the 
individual's dependent children, whether singularly or collectively, 
directly or indirectly, of ten percent or more of any business entity, 
or of an interest having a value of ten thousand dollars or more, or 
the receipt by an individual, the individual's spouse or the 
individual's dependent children, whether singularly or collectively, of 
a salary, gratuity, or other compensation or remuneration of five 
thousand dollars, or more, per year from any individual, partnership, 
organization, or association with any calendar year. The provisions at 
sections 643.040 and 105.450 have both been submitted for inclusion in 
to the SIP. In addition, section 105.463 which has also been submitted 
for inclusion in to the SIP, requires members of the commission to file 
a financial interest statement.
    To satisfy section 128(a)(2) of the CAA, Missouri's August 8, 2012, 
submission identified RsMO section 643.040.2, which establishes ``rules 
of procedure which specify when members shall exempt themselves from 
participating in discussions and from voting on issues before the 
commission due to potential conflict of interest.'' In addition, RsMO 
sections 105.452 and 105.454 identify ``prohibited acts'' that apply to 
both elected or appointed officials and to state employees which relate 
to disclosure of conflicts of interest and financial gain. As an 
example of a ``prohibited act,'' elected or appointed officials or 
employees of Missouri shall not act (or refrain from acting in any 
capacity in which she is lawfully empowered to act) ``by reason of any 
payment, offer to pay, promise to pay, or receipt of anything of actual 
pecuniary value'' paid or received to herself or any third person in 
relationship to or as a condition of the performance of an official act 
(RsMO 105.452.1(1)). These officials or employees are also prohibited 
from using or disclosing confidential information obtained in the 
course of or by reason of her employment or official capacity in any 
manner with intent to result in financial gain for herself, her spouse, 
her dependent child, or any business with which she is associated (RsMO 
105.452.1(2),(3)).
    Chapter 1 Missouri State regulation ``Commission Voting and Meeting 
Procedures'' (1) and (2) also further require disclosure of conflicts 
of interest and require members with conflicts of interest to be 
excluded from voting on the matter at issue, unless that member 
receives a determination from the MACC that the interest is ``not so 
substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the 
services which the state expects from commission members.'' Finally, 
RsMO sections 105.466 and 105.472 include applicable exemptions to the 
``prohibited acts'' identified in RsMO sections 105.450 to 105.458 and 
105.462 to 105.468 and information regarding complaints about any 
violations of these prohibitions related to boards and executives. All 
of these provisions have been submitted by Missouri for inclusion in to 
the SIP.
    As it relates to appointed public officials, such as the Director 
of MDNR, the provisions as described above in sections 105.452 and 
105.454 also apply to heads of the executive agency.
    EPA believes that the above identified relevant sections of 
Missouri's Air Conservation Law and the Missouri air regulations 
directly address the provisions related to sections 128(a)(1) and (2) 
of the CAA. We propose to approve the following provisions in to the 
Missouri SIP, as they strengthen the SIP with respect to the conflict 
of interest requirement of CAA section 128:

 RsMO 643.040.2
 RsMO 105.450
 RsMO 105.452
 RsMO 105.454
 RsMO 105.462
 RsMO 105.463
 RsMO 105.466
 RsMO 105.472
 10 CSR 10-1.020(1) and (2)

    (3) With respect to assurances that the state has responsibility to 
implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies 
to carry out portions of the plan, RsMO section 643.190 designates the 
MDNR as the air pollution control agency ``for all purposes'' of the 
CAA. Although RsMO section 643.140 authorizes the MACC to grant local 
governments such as cities or counties authority to carry out their own 
air pollution control programs, the MACC retains authority to enforce 
the provisions of Missouri's Air Conservation Law in these local areas, 
notwithstanding any such authorization (RsMO 643.140.4). The MACC may 
also suspend or repeal the granting of

[[Page 21290]]

authority if the local government is enforcing any local rules in a 
manner inconsistent with state law (RsMO 643.140.10).
    There are three local air agencies that conduct air quality work in 
Missouri: Kansas City, Springfield/Greene County and St. Louis County. 
The MDNR's Air Pollution Control Program has a signed Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) with Kansas City and Springfield/Greene County and 
a draft agreement for St. Louis County (to be finalized) which outlines 
the responsibilities for air quality activities with each local agency. 
The MDNR Air Program oversees the activities of the local agencies to 
ensure adequate implementation of the Missouri SIP. EPA conducts 
reviews of the local program activities in conjunction with its 
oversight of the state program.
    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the August 8, 2012, SIP 
submission, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and 
provisions referenced in those submissions or referenced in Missouri's 
SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed 
to address section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS and is proposing to approve the February 27, 2007, submission 
regarding the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements, 
the December 28, 2009, submission regarding the 2006 PM2.5 
infrastructure SIP requirements, and the August 8, 2012, submission 
relating to section 128 requirements.
    (F) Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) 
requires states to establish a system to monitor emissions from 
stationary sources and to submit periodic emission reports. Each SIP 
shall require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of 
equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners 
or operators of stationary sources, to monitor emissions from such 
sources. The SIP shall also require periodic reports on the nature and 
amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and 
requires that the state correlate the source reports with emission 
limitations or standards established under the CAA. These reports must 
be made available for public inspection at reasonable times.
    To address this element, RsMO section 643.050.1(3)(a) of the Air 
Conservation Law authorizes the MACC to require persons engaged in 
operations which result in air pollution to monitor or test emissions 
and to file reports containing information relating to rate, period of 
emission and composition of effluent. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.030 
``Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources'' incorporates various EPA 
reference methods for sampling and testing source emissions, including 
methods for PM emissions. The Federal test methods are in 40 CFR part 
51, Appendix M and part 60, Appendix A.
    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.110 ``Reporting & Emission Data, Emission 
Fees, and Process Information'' also requires monitoring of emissions 
and filing of periodic reports on emissions (see (4)(A) for the 
specific information required). Missouri uses this information to track 
progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, developing control and 
maintenance strategies, identifying sources and general emission 
levels, and determining compliance with emission regulations and 
additional EPA requirements. Missouri makes this information available 
to the public (10 CSR 10-6.110(3)(D) ``Reporting & Emission Data, 
Emission Fees, and Process Information''). Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-
6.210 ``Confidential Information,'' specifically excludes emissions 
data from confidential treatment. Under that rule emissions data 
includes the results of any emissions testing or monitoring required to 
be reported by sources under Missouri's air pollution control rules (10 
CSR 10-6.210(3)(B)2).
    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and 
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions 
or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the 
adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and is proposing to approve the 
February 27, 2007, submission regarding the 1997 PM2.5 
infrastructure SIP requirements and the December 28, 2009, submission 
regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements for 
this element.
    (G) Emergency authority: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires SIPs to 
provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and 
substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment 
(comparable to the authorities provided in Section 303 of the CAA), and 
to include contingency plans to implement such authorities as 
necessary.
    RsMO section 643.090.1 of the Air Conservation Law authorizes the 
MACC or the director of MDNR to declare an emergency where the ambient 
air, ``due to meteorological conditions and a buildup of air 
contaminants'' in Missouri, may present an ``emergency risk to the 
public health, safety, or welfare.'' The MACC or director may, with the 
written approval of the governor, by order prohibit, restrict or 
condition all sources of air contaminants contributing to the emergency 
condition, during such periods of time necessary to alleviate or lessen 
the effects of the emergency condition. The statute also enables the 
MACC to promulgate implementing regulations. Even in the absence of an 
emergency condition, RsMO section 643.090.2 also authorizes the MACC or 
the director to issue ``cease and desist'' orders to any specific 
person who is either engaging or may engage in activities which involve 
a significant risk of air contamination or who is discharging into the 
ambient air any air contaminant, and such activity or discharge 
presents a clear and present danger to public health or welfare.
    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.130 ``Controlling Emissions During 
Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential'' includes action levels and 
contingency measures for PM2.5 and other pollutants. This 
rule specifies the conditions that establish an air pollution alert and 
the associated procedures and emissions reduction objectives for 
dealing with each.
    With respect to contingency plan requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(G), EPA has issued guidance making recommendations for how 
states may elect to approach this issue. In that guidance, EPA 
recommended that, where a state can demonstrate that PM2.5 
levels have remained below 140.4 micrograms per cubic meter, the state 
is not required to develop a contingency plan to satisfy element (G). 
EPA believes that this is a reasonable interpretation of the statute 
and addresses the PM2.5 NAAQS in a way analogous to other 
NAAQS pollutants. PM2.5 monitoring data from monitors across 
the state have shown that 24-hour PM2.5 values have never 
exceeded 140.4 micrograms per cubic meter in Missouri. Therefore, 
Missouri is not required to develop a contingency plan for 
PM2.5 at this time.
    That said, Missouri's regulations provide for contingency plans (or 
alert plans) to be implemented if an area's Air Quality Alert value 
exceeds 200 micrograms per cubic meter. These plans must include 
provisions for reducing emissions, such as curtailing production 
processes, diverting power generation to facilities outside of the 
alert area, and stoppage of waste disposal practices or open burning. 
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.130(3)(D)4 ``Controlling Emissions During 
Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential.''

[[Page 21291]]

    Based on a review of these regulatory requirements (which have 
previously been approved by EPA as part of Missouri's SIP (see 50 FR 
41348), and a comparison of it to the requirements in 40 CFR 51.150-
51.153, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP adequately addresses section 
110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and is 
proposing to approve the February 27, 2007, submission regarding the 
1997 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements and the December 
28, 2009, submission regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 
SIP requirements for this element.
    (H) Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires states to 
have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the 
NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in 
response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to 
attain the NAAQS.
    In addition to the MACC's general enabling authority in RsMO 
section 643.050 of the Air Conservation Law, discussed previously in 
element (A), section 643.055.1 grants the MACC and MDNR authority to 
promulgate rules and regulations to establish standards and guidelines, 
to ensure that Missouri complies with the provisions of the Federal 
CAA. Missouri's Chapter 1 state rule ``General Organization'' (2) 
grants similar powers to MDNR. This includes the authority to submit 
SIP revisions to the EPA for approval as necessary to respond to a 
revised NAAQS and to respond to EPA findings of substantial inadequacy 
(e.g., 71 FR 46860, August 15, 2006), in which EPA approved Missouri 
rules promulgated in response to EPA's NOX SIP call for 
Missouri and other states).
    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and 
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions 
or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has 
adequate authority to address section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and is proposing to approve the February 
27, 2007, submission regarding the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure 
SIP requirements and the December 28, 2009, submission regarding the 
2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements for this element.
    (I) Nonattainment areas: Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the 
case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment 
areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, 
relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas.
    As noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP 
submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for 
designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, 
are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 
110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on part D 
attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed 
by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
    (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification, 
PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to 
meet the applicable requirements of the following CAA provisions: (1) 
Section 121, relating to interagency consultation regarding certain CAA 
requirements; (2) section 127, relating to public notification of NAAQS 
exceedances and related issues; and (3) part C of the CAA, relating to 
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility 
protection.
    (1) With respect to interagency consultation, the SIP should 
provide a process for consultation with 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 of the Missouri Air 
Conservation Law requires the MACC to consult and cooperate with other 
Federal and state agencies, and with political subdivisions, for the 
purpose of prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution. 
Missouri also has appropriate interagency consultation provisions in 
its preconstruction permit program. For instance, Missouri rule 10 CSR 
10-6.060(12)(B)2.E ``Construction Permits Required'' requires that when 
a permit goes out for public comment, the permitting authority must 
provide notice to local air pollution control agencies, the chief 
executive of the city and county where the installation or modification 
would be located, any comprehensive regional land use planning agency, 
any state air program permitting authority, and any Federal Land 
Manager whose lands may be affected by emissions from the installation 
or modification.
    (2) With respect to the requirements for public notification in 
section 127, the infrastructure SIP should provide citations to 
regulations in the SIP requiring the air agency to regularly notify the 
public of instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded; advise 
the public of the health hazard associated with such exceedances; and 
enhance public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances 
and of ways in which the public can participate in the regulatory and 
other efforts to improve air quality. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.130 
``Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution 
Potential,'' discussed previously in connection with the state's 
authority to address emergency episodes, contains provisions for public 
notification of elevated PM2.5 and other air pollutant 
levels, and measures which can be taken by the public to reduce 
concentrations. In addition, information regarding air pollution and 
related issues, is provided on an MDNR Web site, http://www.dnr.missouri.gov/env/apcp/index.html.
    (3) With respect to the applicable requirements of part C of the 
CAA, relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality 
and visibility protection, we note in section VII of this rulemaking 
how the Missouri SIP meets the PSD requirements, incorporating the 
federal rule by reference. With respect to the visibility component of 
section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA recognizes that states are subject to 
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the 
CAA. However, when EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, these visibility 
and regional haze requirements under part C do not change. EPA believes 
that there are no new visibility protection requirements under part C 
as a result of a revised NAAQS. Therefore, there are no newly 
applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to element J 
after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Missouri has 
submitted a SIP revision to satisfy the requirements of CAA sections 
169A and 169B, and the regional haze and BART rules contained in 40 CFR 
51.308. On June 7, 2012, EPA published a final rulemaking regarding 
Missouri's regional haze program consisting of a limited disapproval 
and FIP (see 77 FR 33642). In addition, on June 26, 2012, EPA published 
a final rulemaking regarding Missouri's regional haze program 
consisting of a limited approval (see 77 FR 38007). In EPA's view, the 
current status of Missouri's regional haze SIP as having not been fully 
approved is not a bar to full approval of the infrastructure SIP 
submission with respect to the visibility protection aspect of 
110(a)(2)(J), and EPA is proposing to fully approve the infrastructure 
SIP for this aspect. While EPA is not at this time proposing to change 
the June 26, 2012, limited approval or the June 7, 2012, limited 
disapproval of Missouri's regional haze SIP itself, EPA expects to 
address the approval status of the regional haze SIP

[[Page 21292]]

upon final resolution of EME Homer City.
    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and 
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions 
or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has met the 
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the state and is therefore proposing to 
approve the February 27, 2007, submission regarding the 1997 
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements and the December 28, 
2009, submission regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 
requirements for this element.
    (K) Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires 
that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling, as prescribed by 
EPA, to predict the effects on ambient air quality of any emissions of 
any NAAQS pollutant, and for submission of such data to EPA upon 
request.
    Missouri has authority to conduct air quality modeling and report 
the results of such modeling to EPA. Section 643.050 of the Air 
Conservation Law provides the MACC with the general authority to 
develop a general comprehensive plan to prevent, abate and control air 
pollution. Along with section 643.055, which grants the MACC the 
authority to promulgate rules and regulations to establish standards 
and guidelines to ensure that Missouri is in compliance with the 
provisions of the CAA, EPA believes MDNR has the authority to conduct 
modeling to address NAAQS issues. As an example of regulatory authority 
to perform modeling for purposes of determining NAAQS compliance, 
Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10-6.060(12)(F) ``Construction Permits 
Required'' requires the use of EPA-approved air quality models (e.g., 
those found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W) for construction permitting. 
Rule 10 CSR 10-6.110(4) ``Reporting & Emission Data, Emission Fees, and 
Process Information'' requires specified sources of air pollution to 
report emissions to MDNR, which among other purposes may be utilized in 
modeling analyses. These data are available to any member of the 
public, upon request (10 CSR 10-6.110(3)(D)).
    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and 
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions 
or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the 
adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and is proposing to approve the 
February 27, 2007, submission regarding the 1997 PM2.5 
infrastructure SIP requirements and the December 28, 2009, submission 
regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements for 
this element.
    (L) Permitting Fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require 
each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to the permitting 
authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, to 
cover the cost of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a 
permit, and, if the permit is issued, the costs of implementing and 
enforcing the terms of the permit. The fee requirement applies until a 
fee program established by the state pursuant to Title V of the CAA, 
relating to operating permits, is approved by EPA.
    Section 643.079 of the Air Conservation Law provides authority for 
MDNR to collect permit fees, including Title V fees. EPA approved 
Missouri's Title V program in May 1997 (see 62 FR 26405). EPA is 
reviewing the Missouri Title V program, including Title V fee 
structure, separately from this proposed action. Because the Title V 
program and associated fees legally are not part of the SIP, the 
infrastructure SIP action we are proposing today does not preclude EPA 
from taking future action regarding Missouri's Title V program.
    Therefore, EPA believes that the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(L) are met and is proposing to approve the February 27, 2007, 
submission regarding the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 
requirements and the December 28, 2009, submission regarding the 2006 
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements for this element.
    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 
110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to provide for consultation and 
participation by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    Section 643.050.3 of the Air Conservation Law requires that the 
MACC encourage political subdivisions to handle air pollution control 
problems within their respective jurisdictions to the extent possible 
and practicable, and to provide assistance to those political 
subdivisions. The MACC is also required to advise, consult and 
cooperate with other political subdivisions in Missouri. RsMO section 
643.140 provides the mechanism for local political subdivisions to 
enact and enforce their own air pollution control regulations, subject 
to the oversight of the MACC. The MDNR's Air Pollution Control Program 
has a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Kansas City and 
Springfield/Greene County and a draft agreement with St. Louis County 
(to be finalized) which outlines the responsibilities for air quality 
activities with each local agency. In addition, MDNR participates in 
community meetings and consults with and participates in interagency 
consultation groups such as the Metropolitan Planning Organizations in 
both Kansas City and St. Louis. In Kansas City, MDNR works with the 
Mid-America Regional Council and in St. Louis, MDNR works with East-
West Gateway Coordinating Council of Governments.
    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and 
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions 
or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the 
adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and is proposing to approve the 
February 27, 2007, submission regarding the 1997 PM2.5 
infrastructure SIP requirements and the December 28, 2009, submission 
regarding the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP requirements for 
this element.

VI. What are the requirements of the PM2.5 PSD Increment-
SILs-SMC rule for PSD SIP programs?

    The 2010 PM2.5 Increment-SILs-SMC Rule provided 
additional regulatory requirements under the PSD SIP program regarding 
the implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 64864). As a 
result, the rule required states to submit SIP revisions to adopt the 
required PSD increments by July 20, 2012 (75 FR 64864). Specifically, 
the rule required a state's submitted PSD SIP revision to adopt and 
submit for EPA approval the PM2.5 increments pursuant to 
section 166(a) of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air 
quality in areas meeting the NAAQS.
    That rule also permitted states, at their discretion, to choose to 
adopt and submit for EPA approval into the SIP SILs, used as a 
screening tool (by a major source subject to PSD), to evaluate the 
impact a proposed major source or modification may have on the NAAQS or 
PSD increment; and a SMC (also a screening tool), used by a major 
source subject to PSD to determine the subsequent level of data 
gathering required for a PSD permit application for emissions of 
PM2.5. More detail on the PM2.5 PSD Increment-
SILs-SMC Rule can be found at 75 FR 64864. In regards

[[Page 21293]]

to the SILs and SMC provisions of the 2010 PM2.5 rule, on 
January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 10-1413 (filed Dec. 17. 2010), 
issued a judgment that, inter alia, vacated and remanded the provisions 
concerning implementation of the PM2.5 SILs and vacated the 
provisions adding the PM2.5 SMC that were promulgated as 
part of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD Rule.
    Accordingly, the only remaining requirements from the 2010 rule are 
the PM2.5 increment and associated provisions discussed 
below. Under section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a PSD permit applicant must 
demonstrate that emissions from the proposed construction and operation 
of a facility ``will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in 
excess of any maximum allowable increase or allowable concentration for 
any pollutant.'' In other words, when a source applies for a PSD SIP 
permit to emit a regulated pollutant in an attainment or unclassifiable 
area, the permitting authority implementing the PSD SIP must determine 
if emissions of the regulated pollutant from the source will cause 
significant deterioration in air quality. Significant deterioration 
occurs when the amount of the new pollution exceeds the applicable PSD 
increment, which is the ``maximum allowable increase'' of an air 
pollutant allowed to occur above the applicable baseline concentration 
\14\ for that pollutant. PSD increments prevent air quality in 
attainment and unclassifiable areas from deteriorating up to or beyond 
the level set by the NAAQS. Therefore, an increment is the mechanism 
used to estimate ``significant deterioration'' of air quality for a 
pollutant in an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the baseline 
concentration of a pollutant for a particular baseline area is 
generally the same air quality at the time of the first application 
for a PSD permit in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For PSD baseline purposes, a baseline area for a particular 
pollutant emitted from a source includes the attainment or 
unclassifiable/attainment area in which the source is located, as well 
as any other attainment or unclassifiable/attainment area in which the 
source's emissions of that pollutant are projected (by air quality 
modeling) to result in an ambient pollutant increase of at least 1 ug/
m\3\ (annual average) (40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and (ii)). Under EPA's 
existing regulations, the establishment of a baseline area for any PSD 
increment results from the submission of the first complete PSD permit 
application after a trigger date (which for PM2.5 is defined 
as October 20, 2011, by regulation) and is based on the location of the 
proposed source and its emissions impact on the area. Once the baseline 
area is established, subsequent PSD sources locating in that area must 
consider that a portion of the available increment may have already 
been consumed by previous emissions increases. In general, the 
submittal date of the first complete PSD permit application in a 
particular area is the operative ``baseline date.'' \15\ On or before 
the date of the first complete PSD application, emissions generally are 
considered to be part of the baseline concentration, except for certain 
emissions from major stationary sources. Most emissions increases that 
occur after the baseline date will be counted toward the amount of 
increment consumed. Similarly, emissions decreases after the baseline 
date restore or expand the amount of increment that is available (see 
75 FR 64864). As described in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-
SMC rule, pursuant to the authority under section 166(a) of the CAA, 
EPA promulgated numerical increments for PM2.5 as a new 
pollutant \16\ for which the NAAQS were established after August 7, 
1977,\17\ and derived 24-hour and annual PM2.5 increments 
for the three area classifications (Class I, II and III) using the 
``contingent safe harbor'' approach (75 FR at 64869, and table at 40 
CFR 51.166(c)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Baseline dates are pollutant specific. That is, a complete 
PSD application establishes the baseline date only for those 
regulated NSR pollutants that are projected to be emitted in 
significant amounts (as defined in the regulations) by the 
applicant's new source or modification. Thus, an area may have 
different baseline dates for different pollutants.
    \16\ EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS as a 
NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did not replace the 
PM10 NAAQs with the NAAQS for PM2.5 when the 
PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 1997. Rather, EPA 
retained the annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM10 as if 
PM2.5 was a new pollutant even though EPA had already 
developed air quality criteria for PM generally. 75 FR 64864.
    \17\ EPA interprets 166(a) to authorize EPA to promulgate 
pollutant-specific PSD regulations meeting the requirements of 
section 166(c) and 166(d) for any pollutant for which EPA 
promulgates a NAAQS after 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to PSD increments for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC rule amended the definition 
at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 for ``major source baseline date'' 
and ``minor source baseline date'' to establish the PM2.5 
NAAQS specific dates (including trigger dates) associated with the 
implementation of PM2.5 PSD increments. See the PSD 
Increment-SILs-SMC rule for a more detailed discussion on the 
amendments to these definitions (75 FR 64864). In accordance with 
section 166(b) of the CAA, EPA required the states to submit revised 
implementation plans adopting the PM2.5 PSD increments to 
EPA for approval within twenty one months from promulgation of the 
final rule (i.e., by July 20, 2012). Each state was responsible for 
determining how increment consumption and the setting of the minor 
source baseline date for PM2.5 would occur under its own PSD 
program. Regardless of when a state begins to require PM2.5 
increment analysis and how it chooses to set the PM2.5 minor 
source baseline date, the emissions from sources subject to PSD for 
PM2.5 for which construction commenced after October 20, 
2010 (major source baseline date) consume the PM2.5 
increment and therefore should be included in the increment analyses 
occurring after the minor source baseline date is established for an 
area under the state's revised PSD SIP program.

VII. How does the September 5, 2012 Missouri PSD submission satisfy the 
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule?

    To address the requirements of EPA's October 20, 2010, 
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, Missouri submitted a SIP 
revision received by EPA on September 5, 2012, which updated its PSD 
rules to establish the allowable PM2.5 increments, the 
optional screening tools (SILs), and significant monitoring 
concentrations (SMCs). On March 19, 2013, Missouri amended and 
clarified its submission so that it was no longer intending to include 
specific provisions relating to the SILs and SMC affected by the 
January 22, 2013, court decision referenced above. Therefore, in 
today's action, EPA is proposing to approve portions of the SIP 
revision which adopt PSD increments for the PM2.5 annual and 
24-hour NAAQS pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA only. Our analysis 
of the SIP revision follows.
    Specifically, regarding the PSD increments, the submitted SIP 
revision changes include: (1) The PM2.5 increments as 
promulgated at 40 CFR 51.166(c)(1) and (p)(4) (for Class I variances) 
and (2) amendments to the terms ``major source baseline date'' (at 40 
CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c)) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c)), ``minor source 
baseline date''(including establishment of the ``trigger date'') and 
``baseline area'' (as amended at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and (ii) and 
40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i)). In the September 5, 2012, SIP revision, 
Missouri incorporates by reference into the SIP the particular 
definitions from 40 CFR part 51 as referenced above through July 1, 
2011. Missouri updated Table 1--Ambient Air Increment Table to adopt 
the increments as described above in Class I, II, and III areas. 
Missouri has

[[Page 21294]]

also updated Table 2--Significant Monitoring Concentrations for 
PM2.5 and Table 4 Significant Levels for PM2.5.
    As described under element C in section V of this rulemaking, 
states had an obligation to address condensable PM emissions as a part 
of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR implementation rule. In Missouri's SIP 
submission from September 5, 2012, Missouri incorporated by reference 
EPA's definition for regulated NSR pollutant (formerly at 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(49)(vi)), including the term ``particulate matter 
emissions,'' as inadvertently promulgated in the 2008 NSR Rule. EPA is, 
however, proposing to approve into the Missouri SIP the requirement 
that condensable PM be accounted for in applicability determinations 
and in establishing emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 
PM10 because it is more stringent than the Federal 
requirement. Missouri can choose to initiate further rulemaking to 
ensure consistency with Federal requirements.
    In today's action, EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's September 
5, 2012, revision to address the PM2.5 PSD increment 
provisions promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD Increments SILs-SMC 
rule and the obligation to address condensable PM emissions as a part 
of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR implementation rule except as 
identified in Missouri's letter where Missouri amended and clarified 
its submission so that it was no longer intending to include specific 
provisions relating to the SILs and SMC affected by the January 22, 
2013, court decision referenced above. As noted in EPA's April 16, 
2012, final action on Missouri's PSD program (77 FR 22500), provisions 
of the incorporated 2002 NSR reform rule relating to the Clean Unit 
Exemption, Pollution Control Projects (PCPs), and exemption from the 
recordkeeping provisions for certain sources using the actual-to-
projected-actual emissions projections test are not SIP approved 
because in 2005 the DC Circuit Court vacated portions of the rule 
pertaining to clean units, PCPs, and remanded portions of the rule 
regarding recordkeeping. In addition, EPA did not approve Missouri's 
rule incorporating EPA's 2007 revision of the definition of ``chemical 
processing plants'' (the ``Ethanol Rule,'') (72 FR 24060, May 1, 2007) 
or EPA's 2008 ``fugitive emissions rule'' (73 FR 77882, December 19, 
2008). Otherwise, Missouri's revisions also incorporate by reference 
the other provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect on July 1, 2011.

VIII. What are the additional provisions of the September 5, 2012, SIP 
submission that EPA is proposing to take action on?

    Within Missouri's September 5, 2012, SIP submission, Missouri 
amended rule 10 CSR 10-6.060 ``Construction Permits Required'' to defer 
the application of the PSD permitting requirements to carbon dioxide 
emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources pursuant 
to the July 20, 2011, EPA final rulemaking ``Deferral for Carbon 
Dioxide (CO2) Emissions from Bioenergy and other Biogenic 
Sources Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 
Title V Programs'' (see 76 FR 43490). The Biomass Deferral delays until 
July 21, 2014, the consideration of CO2 emissions from 
bioenergy and other biogenic sources (hereinafter referred to as 
``biogenic CO2 emissions'') when determining whether a 
stationary source meets the PSD and Title V applicability thresholds, 
including those for the application of Best Available Control 
Technology (BACT). Stationary sources that combust biomass (or 
otherwise emit biogenic CO2 emissions) and construct or 
modify during the deferral period will avoid the application of PSD to 
the biogenic CO2 emissions resulting from those actions. The 
deferral applies only to biogenic CO2 emissions and does not 
affect non-GHG pollutants or other GHG's (e.g., methane 
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)) emitted from the 
combustion of biomass fuel. Also, the deferral only pertains to 
biogenic CO2 emissions in the PSD and Title V programs and 
does not pertain to any other EPA programs such as the GHG Reporting 
Program. Biogenic CO2 emissions are defined as emissions of 
CO2 from a stationary source directly resulting from the 
combustion or decomposition of biologically-based materials other than 
fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon. Examples of ``biogenic 
CO2 emissions'' include, but are not limited to:
     CO2 generated from the biological decomposition 
of waste in landfills, wastewater treatment or manure management 
processes;
     CO2 from the combustion of biogas collected 
from biological decomposition of waste in landfills, wastewater 
treatment or manure management processes;
     CO2 from fermentation during ethanol production 
or other industrial fermentation processes;
     CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction 
of municipal solid waste or biosolids;
     CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction 
of tire-derived fuel; and
     CO2 derived from combustion of biological 
material, including all types of wood and wood waste, forest residue, 
and agricultural material.
    EPA recognizes that use of certain types of biomass can be part of 
the national strategy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Efforts are 
underway at the Federal, state and regional level to foster the 
expansion of renewable resources and promote bioenergy projects when 
they are a way to address climate change, increase domestic alternative 
energy production, enhance forest management and create related 
employment opportunities.
    For stationary sources co-firing fossil fuel and biologically-based 
fuel, and/or combusting mixed fuels (e.g., tire derived fuels, 
municipal solid waste (MSW)), the biogenic CO2 emissions 
from that combustion are included in the biomass deferral. However, the 
fossil fuel CO2 emissions are not. Emissions of 
CO2 from processing of mineral feedstocks (e.g., calcium 
carbonate) are also not included in the deferral. Various methods are 
available to calculate both the biogenic and fossil fuel portions of 
CO2 emissions, including those methods contained in the GHG 
Reporting Program (40 CFR part 98). Consistent with the other 
pollutants in PSD and Title V, there are no requirements to use a 
particular method in determining biogenic and fossil fuel 
CO2 emissions.
    EPA's final biomass deferral rule is an interim deferral for 
biogenic CO2 emissions only and does not relieve sources of 
the obligation to meet the PSD and Title V permitting requirements for 
other pollutant emissions that are otherwise applicable to the source 
during the deferral period or that may be applicable to the source at a 
future date pending the results of EPA's study and subsequent 
rulemaking action. This means, for example, that if the deferral is 
applicable to biogenic CO2 emissions from a particular 
source during the three-year effective period and the study and 
potential future rulemaking do not provide for a permanent exemption 
from PSD and Title V permitting requirements for the biogenic 
CO2 emissions from a source with particular characteristics, 
then the deferral would end for that type of source and its biogenic 
CO2 emissions would have to be appropriately considered in 
any applicability determinations that the source may need to conduct 
for future stationary source permitting purposes, consistent with the 
potential subsequent

[[Page 21295]]

rulemaking and the Final Tailoring Rule (e.g., a major source 
determination for Title V purposes or a major modification 
determination for PSD purposes).
    EPA also wishes to clarify that we do not require that a PSD permit 
issued during the deferral period be amended or that any PSD 
requirements in a PSD permit existing at the time the deferral took 
effect, such as BACT limitations, be revised or removed from an 
effective PSD permit for any reason related to the deferral or when the 
deferral period expires. The regulation at 40 CFR 52.21(w) requires 
that any PSD permit shall remain in effect, unless and until it expires 
or it is rescinded, under the limited conditions specified in that 
provision. Thus, a PSD permit that is issued to a source while the 
deferral was effective need not be reopened or amended if the source is 
no longer eligible to exclude its biogenic CO2 emissions 
from PSD applicability after the deferral expires. However, if such a 
source undertakes a modification that could potentially require a PSD 
permit and the source is not eligible to continue excluding its 
biogenic CO2 emissions after the deferral expires, the 
source will need to consider its biogenic CO2 emissions in 
assessing whether it needs a PSD permit to authorize the modification.
    Any future actions to modify, shorten, or make permanent the 
deferral for biogenic sources are beyond the scope of the biomass 
deferral action and this proposed approval of the deferral into the 
Missouri SIP, and will be addressed through subsequent rulemaking. The 
results of EPA's review of the science related to net atmospheric 
impacts of biogenic CO2 and the framework to properly 
account for such emissions in Title V and PSD permitting programs based 
on the study are prospective and unknown. Thus, we are unable to 
predict which biogenic CO2 sources, if any, currently 
subject to the deferral as incorporated into the Missouri SIP could be 
subject to any permanent exemptions, or which currently deferred 
sources could be potentially required to account for their emissions.
    Similar to our approach with the Tailoring Rule, EPA incorporated 
the biomass deferral into the regulations governing state programs and 
into the Federal PSD program by amending the definition of ``subject to 
regulation'' under 40 CFR sections 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 
respectively. Missouri implements its PSD program by incorporating 
section 52.21 by reference in its rule 10 CSR 10-6.060 ``Construction 
Permits Required.'' The Missouri submission incorporates by reference 
the CFR through July 1, 2011, in order to adopt the Biomass Deferral.
    Based upon EPA's analysis of the required provisions of the July 
20, 2011, Biomass Deferral rule and how Missouri meets these 
requirements, EPA is proposing to approve the September 5, 2012, 
Missouri SIP revision incorporating the Biomass Deferral.

IX. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA proposes to approve the infrastructure SIP submissions from 
Missouri which address the requirements of CAA sections 110 (a)(1) and 
(2) as applicable to the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS for PM2.5. 
Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and 
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions 
or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the 
infrastructure to address all applicable required elements of sections 
110(a)(1) and(2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented in the state.
    In addition, EPA proposes to approve two additional SIP submissions 
from Missouri, one addressing the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) program in Missouri as it relates to 
PM2.5 (unless otherwise noted), and another SIP revision 
addressing the requirements of section 128 of the CAA, both of which 
support the requirements associated with infrastructure SIPs.
    We are hereby soliciting comment on this proposed action. Final 
rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Statutory Authority

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 29, 2013.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2013-08399 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


