Proposed Rule2021-13693
Air Plan Approval; Missouri Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Jefferson County 2010 SO2 1-Hour NAAQS Nonattainment Area
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 29, 2021
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
On December 27, 2017, the State of Missouri submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Jefferson County, Missouri, 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area to attainment and to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the area. The State provided supplemental information on: May 15, 2018; February 7, 2019; February 25, 2019; and April 9, 2021. In response to these submittals, the EPA is proposing to take the following actions: Approve the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> primary standard in the area; and approve the State's request to redesignate the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> primary standard.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 122 (Tuesday, June 29, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 29, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34177-34187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13693]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R07-OAR-2021-0391; FRL-10025-26-Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri Redesignation Request and Associated
Maintenance Plan for the Jefferson County 2010 SO2 1-Hour NAAQS
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 27, 2017, the State of Missouri submitted a
request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate
the Jefferson County, Missouri, 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO<INF>2</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
nonattainment area to attainment and to approve a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the area. The
State provided supplemental information on: May 15, 2018; February 7,
2019; February 25, 2019; and April 9, 2021. In response to these
submittals, the EPA is proposing to take the following actions: Approve
the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO<INF>2</INF> primary standard in the area; and approve the State's
request to redesignate the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF>
nonattainment area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF>
primary standard.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2021-0391 to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Keas, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7629 or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#315a5450421f5042595d5448715441501f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7ccc2c6d489c6d4cfcbc2dee7c2d7c689c0c8d1">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What is the background for the EPA's proposed actions?
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?
V. What is the EPA's analysis of the request?
VI. What are the actions the EPA is proposing to take?
VII. Environmental Justice Concerns
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2021-
0391, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For
[[Page 34178]]
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on the December 2017 SIP submittal from
July 31, 2017 to September 7, 2017 and held a public hearing on August
31, 2017. The State received and addressed nineteen combined comments
from a total of five sources. The State revised the maintenance plan
based on public comment prior to submitting to the EPA.
On April 9, 2021, Missouri submitted a supplement to the SIP
revision to the EPA consisting of an addendum to the Consent Agreement
between Ameren and Missouri. The Consent Agreement addendum
incorporates monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements
needed to make the emissions limits contained in the Consent Agreement
practically enforceable. Missouri held a public hearing for this SIP
supplement on January 28, 2021 and made the supplement available for
public review and comment from December 28, 2020 through February 4,
2021. Missouri received supportive comments from Ameren.
In addition, as explained above (and in more detail in the
technical support document which is included in the docket for this
action), the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
III. What is the background for the EPA's proposed actions?
On June 2, 2010, the EPA revised the primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS,
establishing a new 1-hour standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb).\1\
Under the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2010 1-hour
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS is met at a monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb (based on the rounding
convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix T).\2\ Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness
requirement. A year meets data completeness requirements when all four
quarters are complete, and a quarter is complete when at least 75
percent of the sampling days for each quarter have complete data. A
sampling day has complete data if 75 percent of the hourly
concentration values, including State-flagged data affected by
exceptional events which have been approved for exclusion by the
Administrator, are reported.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 75 FR 35520.
\2\ See 40 CFR 50.17.
\3\ 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the
EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that does not meet (or that
contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)
the NAAQS.\4\ On August 5, 2013, the EPA designated a portion of
Jefferson County, Missouri, as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour
primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, effective October 4, 2013.\5\ The
designation was based on 2008-2010 monitoring data in Herculaneum,
Missouri, which monitored violations of the standard (see section III
of this document for additional monitoring information). This action
established an attainment date five years after the effective date for
the areas designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS
(i.e., by October 4, 2018). The State was also required to submit a SIP
for the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area to the EPA
that meets the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172(c) and 191-192
within 18 months following the October 4, 2013, effective date of
designation (i.e., by April 4, 2015). The State of Missouri submitted
the ``Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Jefferson County Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area'' on June 5, 2015, and subsequently withdrew the
plan on March 30, 2018, following several intervening steps discussed
later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(i).
\5\ 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013), codified at 40 CFR 81.326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 2, 2016, the State submitted a request asking the EPA
to determine that the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment
area attained the 2010 1-hour primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS per the
EPA's Clean Data Policy. The clean data policy represents the EPA's
interpretation that certain planning-related requirements of part D of
the Act, such as the attainment demonstration, reasonably available
control measures (RACM), and reasonable further progress (RFP), are
suspended for areas that are in fact attaining the NAAQS. A
determination of attainment, or clean data determination, does not
constitute a formal redesignation to attainment. If the EPA
subsequently determines that an area is no longer attaining the
standard, those requirements that were suspended by the clean data
determination are once again due.
On June 23, 2017, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
to approve the State's request for a clean data determination. The
proposal was based on 2014-2016 monitoring data--the Mott Street
monitor design value (dv) was 23 parts per billion (ppb)--and modeling
data (a mix of 2013-2015 actual and allowable emissions).<SUP>6 7</SUP>
After considering public comments received, the EPA published a Notice
of Final Rulemaking (NFRM) approving the State's request for a clean
data determination in the Federal Register on September 13, 2017.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 82 FR 28605.
\7\ The State or Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) was moved
from Main Street to Mott Street in 2011 with EPA approval. The Mott
Street SLAMS location was selected to characterize source specific
(both SO<INF>2</INF> and lead) emissions from the Doe Run
Herculaneum primary lead smelter.
\8\ See 82 FR 42945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 27, 2017, the State submitted a request for
redesignation of the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area
to attainment and a SIP revision containing a 10-year maintenance plan
for the area. On May 15, 2018, the State submitted a clarifying letter
that Appendix A (containing the emissions inventory for the area) and
Appendix B (containing a Consent Agreement for certain sources in the
area) of the SIP submittal should be considered part of the SIP
revision request. On February 7, 2019, and February 25, 2019, the State
submitted supplemental modeling information to the EPA. On April 9,
2021, the State submitted an addendum to the Consent Agreement which
contains the emissions limits and monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements needed to determine compliance with the
emissions limits for the covered sources. This proposal document
discusses the EPA's review of the redesignation request, the
maintenance plan (including Consent Agreement and addendum), and the
supplemental information and provides support for the EPA's proposed
approval of the request to redesignate the area to attainment and for
proposed approval of the 10-year maintenance plan. Additional analysis
of the redesignation request, 10-year maintenance plan, Consent
Agreement and addendum, and supplemental modeling information is
[[Page 34179]]
provided in a Technical Support Document (TSD) included in the docket
to this proposed rulemaking.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The TSD discusses the EPA's review of the CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria: (i) A determination of
attainment; (iii) a determination that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and (iv) a fully approved maintenance plan as well CAA section 175A
maintenance plan criteria: (1) Attainment inventory; (2) maintenance
demonstration; and (3) continued monitoring. The EPA's review of the
remaining redesignation and maintenance plan criteria are
sufficiently addressed in the preamble language to the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation of a nonattainment area provided that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan
for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the
State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
V. What is the EPA's analysis of the request?
The EPA's evaluation of Missouri's redesignation request and
maintenance plan is based on consideration of the five redesignation
criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) and relevant guidance.
On April 16, 1992, the EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the
General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992.<SUP>10 11</SUP> The EPA has provided further guidance on
processing redesignation requests in several guidance documents. For
the purposes of this action, the EPA will be referencing two of these
documents: (1) The September 4, 1992 memo ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni Memo); and (2)
the EPA's April 23, 2014 memorandum ``Guidance for 1-Hour
SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions'' (2014
SO<INF>2</INF> Guidance).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 57 FR 13498.
\11\ See 57 FR 18070.
\12\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion (1)--The Jefferson County SO2 Nonattainment Area Has Attained
the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires the EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). The EPA determined that the area
attained the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in its September 2017
NFRM approving the State's request for a clean data determination
meeting the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). That
determination was primarily based on a modeling analysis of recent
actual emissions for sources in and around the nonattainment area. As
described further in the TSD for this action, the Supplemental modeling
submitted by Missouri in February 2019 to support the redesignation
request and maintenance plan is based on a modeling demonstration of
permanent and enforceable emissions at sources in the nonattainment
area that similarly demonstrates the area is attaining the standard.
Therefore, the EPA's determination that the area had achieved clean
data is consistent with the proposed action to redesignate the area.
Following the EPA's determination that the area had achieved clean
data, the EPA reviewed quality assured monitoring data recorded in the
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) from the Mott Street monitoring station.
The 3-year, 2018-2020 design value for the Mott Street monitor is 14
ppb and continues to meet the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, as
shown in Table 1. If the 3-year design value violates the NAAQS prior
to the EPA acting in response to the State's request, the EPA will not
take final action to approve the redesignation request.\13\ As
discussed in more detail later in this section, Missouri has committed
to continue monitoring in this area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> Guidance, at 56.
Table 1--2015-2020 Mott Street Monitor Data (parts per billion (ppb)); 99th Percentile (99%) and 3-Year Design Value (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2015-2017 2016-2018 2017-2019 2018-2020
Site 99th % 99th % 99th % 99th % 99th % 99th % dv dv dv dv
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mott Street................................... 38 13 18 12 12 17 23 14 14 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion (2)--Missouri Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k);
and Criterion (5)--Missouri Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of Title I of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment under a NAAQS,
the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the State has met all
applicable requirements for that NAAQS under section 110 and part D of
title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the State has
a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for that NAAQS for the area
(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). The EPA proposes to find that Missouri
has met all applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation
for the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area under
section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). Additionally, the
EPA proposes to find that the Missouri SIP satisfies the criterion that
it meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation
under part D of title I of the CAA in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, the EPA proposes to determine that the SIP is
fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for the 2010
1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In proposing to make these
determinations, the EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable
to the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area and, if
applicable, that they are fully approved under section 110(k).
[[Page 34180]]
a. The Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Area Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
General SIP requirements. General SIP elements and requirements are
delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal
of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable public
notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of
appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for
air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation in planning and emissions control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, the EPA
has required certain States to establish programs to address the
interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a State are not linked with a nonattainment area's
designation and classification in that State. The EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a nonattainment area's designation and
classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where
applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless of the designation
of any one area in the State. Thus, the EPA does not believe that the
CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, the EPA believes other section 110 elements that are
neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with
an area's attainment status are applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements
after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements
which are linked with an area's designation and classification are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request.
This approach is consistent with the EPA's existing policy on
applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated
fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 2008);
Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in
the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October
19, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I, part D, applicable SIP requirements. Section 172(c) of the
CAA sets forth the basic requirements of attainment plans for
nonattainment areas that are required to submit them pursuant to
section 172(b). Subpart 5 of part D, which includes section 191 and 192
of the CAA, establishes requirements for SO<INF>2,</INF> nitrogen
dioxide and lead nonattainment areas. A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in sections 172(c) can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 57 FR 13498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 172 and subpart 5 requirements. Section 172(c)(1) requires
the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation
of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA interprets this requirement to impose
a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control
measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably
available for implementation in each area as components of the area's
attainment demonstration. Under section 172, States with nonattainment
areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a
variety of other requirements.
The EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning
requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the
NAAQS, those requirements are not ``applicable'' for purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) and therefore need not be approved
into the SIP before the EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992
General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, the EPA set forth its
interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating
redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard.\16\ The
EPA noted that the requirements for RFP and other measures designed to
provide for attainment do not apply in evaluating redesignation
requests because those nonattainment planning requirements ``have no
meaning'' for an area that has already attained the standard.\17\ This
interpretation was also set forth in the Calcagni Memo. The EPA's
understanding of section 172 also forms the basis of its Clean Data
Policy, which was articulated with regard to the 2010 1-hour
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the EPA's 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> Guidance, and
suspends a State's obligation to submit most of the attainment planning
requirements that would otherwise apply, including an attainment
demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and
contingency measures under section 172(c)(9). Courts have upheld the
EPA's interpretation of section 172(c)(1) for ``reasonably available''
control measures and control technology as meaning only those controls
that advance attainment, which precludes the need to require additional
measures where an area is already attaining.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 57 FR 13498, 13564.
\17\ Id.
\18\ NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra
Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA,
314 F.3d 735, 744 (5th Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004). But see Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir.
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, because the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF>
nonattainment area is currently attaining the 2010 1-hour
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment
demonstration and RACM are not part of the ``applicable implementation
plan'' required to have been approved prior to redesignation per CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). The other section 172 requirements
that are designed to help an area achieve attainment--the section
172(c)(2) requirement that nonattainment plans contain provisions
promoting reasonable further progress, the requirement to submit the
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, and the section 172(c)(6)
requirement for the SIP to contain control measures necessary to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS--are also not required to be
approved as part of the ``applicable implementation plan'' for purposes
of satisfying CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v).
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. The
requirement for an emissions inventory can be satisfied by meeting the
inventory requirements of the maintenance plan.\19\ However, when the
State withdrew its attainment plan for the area in March 2018, it did
not withdraw the baseline emissions inventory submitted with that plan.
On November 23, 2018, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register proposing to approve that the State met the
section 172(c)(3)
[[Page 34181]]
requirement to submit an emissions inventory for the Jefferson County
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area.\20\ On February 13, 2019, the EPA
published a final rulemaking in the Federal Register approving the
State's emissions inventory for the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF>
nonattainment area.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Calcagni Memo at 6.
\20\ See 83 FR 59348.
\21\ See 84 FR 3703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for
the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. The State has an approved
nonattainment NSR program.\22\ Regardless, the State has demonstrated
that the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area will be
able to maintain the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect. Missouri's PSD
program will be in effect in the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF>
nonattainment area upon redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 80 FR 31844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, the EPA believes the
Missouri SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
Section 176 conformity requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires States to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that
are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the United States
Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with federal conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that the EPA promulgated
pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
Missouri has an approved general conformity SIP.\23\ Moreover, the
EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d)
because, like other requirements listed above, State conformity rules
are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules
apply where State rules have not been approved.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 78 FR 57267.
\24\ See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding
this interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Tampa, Florida).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> Guidance, transportation
conformity is required under CAA section 176(c) to ensure that
federally supported highway and transit project activities are
consistent with (``conform to'') the purpose of the SIP. Transportation
conformity applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and
those areas redesignated to attainment (``maintenance areas'' with
plans developed under CAA section 175A) for transportation-related
criteria pollutants. Due to the relatively small, and decreasing,
amounts of sulfur in gasoline and on-road diesel fuel, the EPA's
conformity rules provide that they do not apply to SO<INF>2</INF>
unless either the EPA Regional Administrator or the director of the
State air agency has found that transportation-related emissions of
SO<INF>2</INF> as a precursor are a significant contributor to a
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment problem, or if the SIP has established
an approved or adequate budget for such emissions as part of the RFP,
attainment or maintenance strategy.\25\ Neither the EPA nor Missouri
has made such a finding for transportation related emissions of
SO<INF>2</INF> for the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1), (2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the EPA proposes to find that Missouri has
satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation of
the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area under section
110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
b. The Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Area Has a Fully
Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
The EPA has fully approved the applicable Missouri SIP for the
Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area under section 110(k)
of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation. As indicated above, the EPA believes that the section
110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan
submissions nor linked to an area's attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The EPA has
approved all part D requirements applicable under the 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, as identified above, for purposes of this
redesignation.
Criterion (3)--The Air Quality Improvement in the Jefferson County SO2
Nonattainment Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in
Emissions
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires the EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the
area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable federal air
pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable
reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). The EPA proposes to find
that Missouri has demonstrated that the observed air quality
improvement in the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
Specifically, the EPA considers the shutdown of the Doe Run Herculaneum
primary lead smelter (lead smelter), identified as the key contributor
to the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS violations at the Mott Street monitor, to
be both permanent and enforceable.\26\ As stated on page 10 of the
Calcagni Memo, ``Emission reductions from source shutdowns can be
considered permanent and enforceable to the extent that those shutdowns
have been reflected in the SIP and all applicable permits have been
modified accordingly.'' The lead smelter was limited to the terms of a
consent decree entered by Doe Run, Missouri, and the EPA in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri (2011 Consent
Decree).\27\ On December 31, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the 2011
Consent Decree, the lead smelter permanently ceased operations of the
sintering plant. The 2011 Consent Decree also required the lead smelter
to permanently cease smelting operations and retire the blast furnaces
by April 30, 2014; the lead smelter ceased operation of the blast
furnaces on December 31, 2013, concurrently with the cessation of
operation of the sintering plant. In addition, the Consent Decree
required Doe Run to surrender air permits for the emission units
required to be permanently shut down by the Consent Decree. Given the
well-established correlation of much lower SO<INF>2</INF> emissions at
the Mott Street monitor during periods when the lead smelter has been
shut down, the EPA
[[Page 34182]]
anticipates that the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS will continue to be attained.
See Table 1 for recent monitoring data trends at this monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See EPA's final Technical Support Document (TSD) for the
Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Area, in the docket
for EPA's initial round of 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> designations at EPA-
HQ-OAR-2012-0233-0318.
\27\ Case No. 4:10-cv-01895-JCH on December 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the State entered into a Consent Agreement with
Ameren Missouri (Ameren), included as Appendix B to the maintenance
plan submission, limiting the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from three
Ameren facilities. One facility, Ameren-Rush Island Energy Center (Rush
Island), is located within the nonattainment area boundary. The other
two facilities, Ameren Meramec Energy Center (Meramec) and Ameren
Labadie Energy Center (Labadie) are located outside of the
nonattainment area boundary. The Consent Agreement emission limits are
provided in Table 2.
Table 2--Ameren/Missouri Consent Agreement SO2 Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit
Source per source Averaging time
(pounds per hour)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labadie...................................... 40,837 24-hr block average.
Meramec...................................... 7,371 24-hr block average.
Rush Island.................................. 13,600 24-hr block average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it is located inside of the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF>
nonattainment area, the State modeled Rush Island at a constant
emission rate of 14,600 lbs SO<INF>2</INF>/hr for every hour of the
year in all five years (2013-2017) of the modeling analysis. This
modeled emission rate corresponds to the facility's enforceable 24-hour
block average limit for hourly SO<INF>2</INF> emissions of 13,600 lbs
SO<INF>2</INF>/hr when accounting for variability. The State modeled
Meramec and Labadie as nearby sources in accordance with the code of
federal regulations (CFR) 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, Guideline on Air
Quality Models. That is, the State modeled Meramec and Labadie's
permitted/allowable emission rate from the Consent Agreement with
actual temporally varying heat input levels. Please see the TSD for
details of the modeling inputs and additional discussion of the air
quality modeling. The modeling results demonstrate attainment and
project continued maintenance of the NAAQS, and the TSD also contains
discussion of the EPA's review of the modeling.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to find that the air quality
improvement in the Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
Criterion (4)--The Jefferson County SO2 Nonattainment Area Has a Fully
Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
To redesignate a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires
the EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance
plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the
Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area to attainment for
the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, the State submitted a SIP
revision to provide for the maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS for at least 10 years after the effective date of
redesignation to attainment. The EPA is proposing to find that this
maintenance plan for the area meets the requirements for approval under
section 175A of the CAA.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
CAA section 175A sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves
a redesignation request to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures as the EPA deems necessary to assure prompt
correction of any future 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> violations. The
Calcagni Memo provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance
plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five
requirements: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance
demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. As is discussed more fully later in this section, the
EPA is proposing to determine that Missouri's maintenance plan includes
all the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a
revision to the Missouri SIP.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
As part of a State's maintenance plan, the air agency should
develop an attainment inventory to identify the level of emissions in
the affected area which is enough to attain and maintain the
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.\28\ The EPA is proposing to approve that Missouri
has met this requirement through modeling of permanent and enforceable
emissions limits that will result in continued attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. Missouri also provided emissions inventories
as part of the maintenance plan. Specifically, Missouri selected 2014
as the attainment emissions inventory year for developing an emissions
inventory for SO<INF>2</INF> in the nonattainment area through 2030.
Please see the TSD included in the docket for this action for details
of the base year, attainment year and future year emissions inventories
and the EPA's review of these inventories. The TSD also details the
EPA's review of the modeling demonstration provided by Missouri which
forms the basis for the EPA's approval of this maintenance plan
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> Guidance, at 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The Calcagni memo describes two ways for a State to demonstrate
maintenance of the NAAQS for a period of at least 10 years following
the redesignation of the area: (1) The State can show that future
emissions of a pollutant will not exceed the level of the attainment
inventory, or (2) the State can model to show that the future mix of
sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of the standard.
The memo goes on to say that areas that are required to model to
demonstrate attainment of the standard should complete the same level
of modeling to demonstrate that the permanent and enforceable emissions
are enough to maintain the standard. The State performed several
modeling iterations to demonstrate that the standard will be
maintained. In its February 7, 2019, and February 25, 2019,
supplemental
[[Page 34183]]
modeling, Missouri has demonstrated maintenance by modeling all sources
inside of the nonattainment area at their permanent, enforceable,
allowable emission rates, nearby sources at their permanent,
enforceable, allowable emission rates (with actual operating conditions
for 2013-2017), and other sources addressed through the use of a
background concentration. The EPA proposes that the supplemental
modeling provided by Missouri demonstrates the standard will be
attained and maintained for at least 10 years following redesignation
of the area, consistent with the second method outlined in the Calcagni
memo by which a State may demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS. Please
see the TSD for details of the modeling inputs, results and the EPA's
review of them. The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's maintenance
plan including the supplemental modeling and a background concentration
revised by the EPA as meeting the maintenance demonstration
requirement.
d. Monitoring Network
Missouri has committed to continue operating the ``appropriate
SO<INF>2</INF> network in the Jefferson County nonattainment area'' in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, and approved annual
monitoring network plans, to verify the attainment status of the area.
The State committed to quality assure the data in accordance with 40
CFR part 58 and submit the data to the EPA's air quality system (AQS).
The maintenance plan, consistent with the State's 2019 annual ambient
monitoring network plan, indicate that the Mott Street monitor is the
only SLAMS or SLAMS like monitor operational in the nonattainment
area.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Missouri's 2019 Ambient Monitoring Network Plan
contained in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are also three industrial source monitors located around Rush
Island.\30\ These monitors are required per the Consent Agreement
between Ameren and the State.\31\ The Consent Agreement required the
monitors to start operation by December 2015 and operate 12 consecutive
quarters (3 years). The industrial source monitors have also been
identified in the State's annual ambient monitoring network plans since
2015.\32\ The Consent Agreement also requires certain responses by
Ameren if elevated monitoring values are recorded at any of the
industrial source monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The industrial monitors are not classified as SLAMS nor as
Data Requirements Rule monitors.
\31\ The Consent Agreement is included as Appendix B of the
maintenance plan.
\32\ The EPA approved the State's 2019 Ambient Monitoring
Network Plan via letter dated January 8, 2021. Missouri's 2019 Plan
and the EPA's approval letter are included in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maintenance plan and Consent Agreement requires Ameren to
operate the industrial source monitors for a minimum of 12 consecutive
quarters. The maintenance plan and Consent Agreement do not establish
that the monitors must be operated as SLAMS-like monitors which would
make them subject to the discontinuation requirements of 40 CFR part
58.\33\ However, because the EPA is proposing to approve the
requirement to operate the industrial source monitors, and that the
contingency measures may be triggered by data recorded by these
industrial source monitors, as contained in the Consent Agreement, into
the SIP, the monitors must operate until the EPA approves a revision to
the SIP to remove the monitoring requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ However, the EPA notes that the industrial source monitors
are operated in accordance with an approved industrial source
monitoring quality assurance project plan (QAPP) and quality
management plan (QMP). The relevant QAPP and QMP documents are
included in the docket for this action. The QMP outlines the quality
assurance audits to be conducted by Missouri staff to ensure the
industrial monitoring data is collected in a manner equivalent to
SLAMS and may be used to determine NAAQS compliance. See Missouri's
2016 Ambient Monitoring Network Plan contained in the docket for
this action for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the industrial source monitors were not identified by the
State as necessary to meet the requirements of the Data Requirements
Rule (DRR) they are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
51.1203(c).\34\ The 2018 annual monitoring network plan commits the
State to ``continuing to work with Ameren to collect quality assured
SO<INF>2</INF> ambient air quality data and meteorological data near
the Rush Island power station to provide quantifiable and useful
information to supplement the ongoing 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS
implementation process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The EPA promulgated the DRR August 21, 2015. The DRR
requires air agencies to characterize air quality, either by
monitoring or modeling, around sources that emit 2,000 tons per year
(tpy) or more of SO<INF>2</INF>. The requirement for air quality
characterization near a source may be avoided by adopting
enforceable emission limits that ensure that the source will not
emit more than 2,000 tpy of SO<INF>2</INF>. On January 15, 2016, the
State submitted a final list identifying the sources in the State
around which SO<INF>2</INF> air quality will be characterized. Rush
Island was not included in the list because it is within the
Jefferson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area. Starting in
2016, Missouri's annual monitoring network plans state that
monitoring around Rush Island is being conducted by agreement
between the State and Ameren.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there is no regulatory obligation, or commitment from
Ameren or the State to operate the industrial source monitors as SLAMS-
like or for the duration of the maintenance period, the EPA is
proposing to approve that the State is meeting its obligation to
continue monitoring in the area, and verify ongoing attainment and
maintenance, via operation of the Mott Street SLAMS monitor and that
Missouri's maintenance plan meets the ``Monitoring Network''
requirement.\35\ However, as previously noted, because the EPA is
proposing to approve the Consent Agreement into the SIP, continued
operation of the industrial source monitors will be required until the
EPA approves a revision to the SIP to remove the monitoring
requirements.\36\ The available recent monitoring data from these
industrial monitors is included in the TSD associated with this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Any change in the operational status or location of the
Mott Street monitor must be approved by the Regional Administrator
in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
\36\ The EPA would also need to approve the monitor changes as
part of the State's annual monitoring network plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Each air agency should ensure that it has the legal authority to
implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and maintain the
2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. The air agency's submittal should indicate
how it will track the progress of the maintenance plan for the area
either through air quality monitoring or modeling.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> Guidance at 67-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri has the legal authority to enforce and implement the
maintenance plan for the Jefferson County 2010 SO<INF>2</INF>
nonattainment area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement,
and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures
determined to be necessary to correct future SO<INF>2</INF> attainment
problems.\38\ As noted, the State will track the progress of the
maintenance plan by continuing to operate the Mott Street monitor.
Additionally, the State committed to provide future inventory updates
to track emissions during the 10-year maintenance period. State
Regulation 10 CSR 10-6.110, Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees, and
Process Information, (which is SIP approved) requires that all
installations with a construction or operating permit report its annual
emissions to the State. The methods for calculating and reporting
emissions are detailed in each installation's applicable permit. The
data collected on emissions inventory questionnaires from permitted
sources form the basis of the point source emissions inventory that is
[[Page 34184]]
compiled annually.\39\ In addition, in compliance with the EPA's Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements [80 FR 8787], Missouri develops a
comprehensive emissions inventory of point, area, and mobile sources
every 3 years. This triennial inventory compiled by the State is
contained in the EPA's national emissions inventory (NEI) which is made
publicly available every 3 years. For these reasons, the EPA is
proposing to find that Missouri's maintenance plan meets the
``Verification of Continued Attainment'' requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The EPA last determined that Missouri's SIP was sufficient
to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA on
March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12496).
\39\ This information is available to the EPA or members of the
public upon request from the State of Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
such contingency measures as the EPA deems necessary to assure that the
State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for action by the State. A State
should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when
the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan
must also include a requirement that a State will implement all
measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained
in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance
with section 175A(d).
The contingency plan includes a triggering mechanism to determine
when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and
implementing appropriate control measures. The triggering mechanisms
contained in the maintenance plan and Consent Agreement are based on
monitoring data from the Mott Street monitor and the industrial source
monitors around the Ameren Rush Island facility. The EPA finds it
appropriate to rely on monitoring data to trigger the contingency plan
because the Mott Street monitor is being relied upon to demonstrate
continued maintenance in the area as discussed in the Monitoring
Network section of this document. Additionally, the industrial source
monitors were sited consistent with relevant EPA guidance to capture
maximum impacts from the Rush Island plant.\40\ Because the Rush Island
plant is the largest remaining source in the maintenance area, the EPA
agrees that monitoring around the Rush Island plant would be the best
indicator of any potential future air quality issues in the maintenance
area and thereby represents a reasonable triggering mechanism for the
State's contingency plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Missouri's 2015 and 2016 annual monitoring network
plans contained in the docket for this action for more information
about the siting of the monitors around Rush Island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State listed two types of triggers of its contingency plan. The
first, a ``warning level response,'' will be triggered by a 99th
percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average SO<INF>2</INF>
concentrations greater than 79 ppb in a single calendar year in the
Jefferson County maintenance area. The second, an ``action level
response,'' will be triggered if a violation of the NAAQS is recorded
in the Jefferson County maintenance area, specifically if the 3-year
average of annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour concentrations
is 76 ppb or higher.
If the warning level response is triggered, a study must be
completed to determine whether the monitored SO<INF>2</INF> value
indicates a trend toward higher concentrations in the Jefferson County
maintenance area. The study will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is
likely to continue. The study shall be completed as expeditiously as
possible, but no later than 24 months after the State has determined
that a warning level response has been triggered. It should be noted
that the EPA does not require a State to implement contingency measures
when occasional exceedances are recorded.
If the action level response is triggered and is not found to be
due to an exceptional event as defined at 40 CFR part 50.1(j), measures
to address the violation shall be implemented as expeditiously as
possible, but no later than 24 months after quality assured ambient
data that has been entered into the AQS database indicating that this
trigger has occurred. If a new measure or control is already
promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the federal or State
level, and that measure or control is determined to be enough to
address the upward trend in ambient SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations
within the maintenance area, additional local measures may be
unnecessary. Furthermore, Missouri will submit to the EPA an analysis
demonstrating the proposed action level response measures are adequate
to return the area to attainment. Contingency measures considered will
be based on an analysis of the cause of the elevated ambient
SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations from the entity(ies) likely to be
contributing to the elevated concentrations. Measures may include
improvements to existing control devices, addition of secondary control
devices or improvements in housekeeping and maintenance, among other
measures. It is not possible to develop a comprehensive list of
contingency measures that can address all possible violations until the
cause of the elevated concentrations is known. Any contingency measures
implemented will require a compliance plan and expeditious compliance
timeline from the entity(ies) involved. The EPA is proposing to find
that Missouri's maintenance plan meets the ``Contingency Measures''
requirement.
In addition to the contingency plan contained in the maintenance
plan, the Consent Agreement contains specific contingency plan triggers
and requirements for Ameren. Specifically, the Consent Agreement
requires that Ameren perform an air quality analysis if any elevated
monitoring values are recorded (one occurrence of a measured
SO<INF>2</INF> concentration that exceeds 75 ppb for one hour) at any
of the three industrial source monitors. Ameren must submit this air
quality analysis including the monitored information and any relevant
operational information to Missouri within a specified time frame.
If through discussion of the air quality analysis, it is
established that the elevated monitoring values were attributable to
Ameren Rush Island, Ameren would provide the State with proposed
potential mitigation measures, SO<INF>2</INF> emissions limitations,
and a compliance schedule.
The EPA proposes to conclude that the maintenance plan adequately
addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: The
attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan.
Therefore, the EPA proposes to find that the maintenance plan SIP
revision submitted by Missouri for the Jefferson County 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area meets the requirements of section
175A of the CAA and proposes to approve the plan.
VI. What are the actions the EPA is proposing to take?
The EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the
Jefferson County 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 1-hour NAAQS nonattainment area
into the Missouri SIP (as compliant with CAA section 175A). The
maintenance plan demonstrates that the area will continue to maintain
the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS and includes a process to develop
contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 2010
[[Page 34185]]
1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential
violations.
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Jefferson
County 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 1-hour NAAQS nonattainment area has met the
criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
On this basis, the EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's redesignation
request for the area. Final approval of Missouri's redesignation
request would change the legal designation of the portion of Jefferson
County designated nonattainment at 40 CFR part 81 to attainment for the
2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
VII. Environmental Justice Concerns
When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires
the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment,
attainment, or unclassifiable. Area designations address environmental
justice concerns by ensuring that the public is properly informed about
the air quality in an area. If an area is designated in nonattainment
of the NAAQS, the CAA provides for the EPA to redesignate the area to
attainment upon a demonstration by the state authority that air quality
is attaining the NAAQS and will continue to maintain the NAAQS in order
to ensure that all those residing, working, attending school, or
otherwise present in those areas are protected, regardless of minority
and economic status.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the Missouri State Implementation Plan described in the
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, if they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this action:
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
<bullet> This action does not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations,
low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The analysis for
this determination is contained in Section VII of this action,
``Environmental Justice Concerns.''
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Maintenance plan, Redesignation, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Designations,
Redesignation, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: June 22, 2021.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as set forth below:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA--Missouri
0
2. In Sec. 52.1320:
0
a. The table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding the entry ``(34)''
in numerical order.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry ``(79)''
in numerical order.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
[[Page 34186]]
EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Order/permit No. effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(34) Ameren Missouri............. Consent Agreement 12/14/2020 [Date of ...................
and Addendum No. publication of the
APCP-2015-034. final rule in the
Federal Register],
[Federal Register
citation of the
final rule].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic or State submittal EPA approval
revision nonattainment area date date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(79) Jefferson County 1-hour Jefferson County 12/27/17; 5/15/ [Date of This action
SO2 NAAQS Maintenance Plan 18; 2/7/19; 2/ publication of approves the
and Supplemental Modeling 25/19; and 4/9/ the final rule Maintenance
Analyses. 21 in the Federal Plan and the
Register], Supplemental
[Federal Modeling
Register Analyses for
citation of the the Jefferson
final rule] County area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 52.1343, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1343 Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.
* * * * *
(c) Redesignation to attainment. EPA has determined, as of [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], that the
Jefferson County 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area is redesignated
to attainment of the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 1-hour National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) in accordance with the requirements of Clean
Air Act (CAA) section 107(d)(3) and has approved its maintenance plan
and supplemental modeling demonstration analyses as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 175A.
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations
0
5. In Sec. 81.326, revise the entry ``Jefferson County, MO'' in the
table entitled ``Missouri--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS [Primary]'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 81.326 Missouri.
* * * * *
Missouri--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
[Primary]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation
Designated area 1 ----------------------------------------
Date 2 Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Jefferson County, MO [Date 30 days Attainment.
after date of
publication of
the final rule
in the Federal
Register]
Jefferson County (part):...
That portion within
Jefferson County
described by
connecting the
following four sets of
UTM coordinates moving
in a clockwise manner:
(Herculaneum USGS
Quadrangle)
718360.283
4250477.056,
729301.869
4250718.415,
729704.134
4236840.30,
718762.547
4236558.715.
(Festus USGS
Quadrangle)
718762.547
4236558.715,
729704.134
4236840.30,
730066.171
4223042.637,
719124.585
4222680.6.
(Selma USGS
Quadrangle)
729704.134
4236840.30,
730428.209
4236840.3,
741047.984
4223283.996,
730066.171
4223042.637.
(Valmeyer USGS
Quadrangle)
729301.869
4250718.415,
731474.096
4250798.868,
730428.209
4236840.3,
729704.134
4236840.30.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise
specified. EPA is not determining the boundaries of any area of Indian
country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in
the larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in
the designation area is not a determination that the state has
regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is April 9, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
[[Page 34187]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-13693 Filed 6-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 29, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.