Proposed Rule2021-22746
Air Plan Approval; Missouri Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Jackson 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
October 26, 2021
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
On February 18, 2021, the State of Missouri submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Jackson County, Missouri, 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area to attainment and approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the area. The State provided a supplement to the maintenance plan on September 7, 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 Jackson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> primary standard. This redesignation action, if finalized, will address the EPA's obligation under a consent decree which establishes a deadline of March 31, 2022 for the EPA to determine under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 179(c) whether the Jackson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 204 (Tuesday, October 26, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59075-59084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22746]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R07-OAR-2021-0667; FRL-9105-01-R7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri Redesignation Request and Associated
Maintenance Plan for the Jackson County 2010 SO2 1-Hour NAAQS
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 18, 2021, the State of Missouri submitted a
request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate
the Jackson County, Missouri, 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO<INF>2</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
nonattainment area to attainment and approve a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the area. The
State provided a supplement to the maintenance plan on September 7,
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 Jackson County
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO<INF>2</INF> primary standard. This redesignation action, if
finalized, will address the EPA's obligation under a consent decree
which establishes a deadline of March 31, 2022 for the EPA to determine
under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 179(c) whether the Jackson County
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the October 4,
2018 attainment date.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2021-0667 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: Wendy Vit, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7697 or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a6c736e346d7f747e635a7f6a7b347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cfb9a6bbe1b8aaa1abb68faabfaee1a8a0b9">[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-
0667, 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
[[Page 59076]]
other file sharing system). For 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
February 18, 2021 SIP submittal included a redesignation request and a
maintenance plan, consisting of a maintenance demonstration based on
air dispersion modeling, an attainment emissions inventory, contingency
plan and other required elements. The State provided public notice on
the February 18, 2021 SIP submittal from November 2, 2020 to December
10, 2020 and held a public hearing on December 3, 2020. The State
received and addressed three comments from one source (the EPA). The
State revised the maintenance plan based on public comment prior to
submitting to the EPA.
On September 7, 2021, Missouri submitted a supplement to the
maintenance plan consisting of a Consent Agreement between Missouri and
Vicinity Energy--Kansas City (Vicinity, formerly Veolia-Kansas City)
and an updated air dispersion modeling demonstration to support the
redesignation. Missouri held a public hearing for this maintenance plan
supplement on July 29, 2021 and made the supplement available for
public review and comment from June 28, 2021 through August 5, 2021.
Missouri did not receive any public comments.
In addition, as explained in later sections (and in more detail in
the technical support document (TSD) which is included in the docket
for this action), the maintenance plan meets the substantive SIP
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including section 110 and
implementing regulations.
III. What is the background for the EPA's proposed actions?
On June 22, 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 (June 22, 2010).
\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
Jackson County, Missouri, as nonattainment in Round 1 of the
designations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS,
effective October 4, 2013.\5\ The designation was based on 2009-2011
monitoring data from the Troost monitor in Kansas City, Missouri,
showing violations of the standard (see section V of this document for
additional monitoring information). This action established an
attainment date five years after the effective date of designation for
the Round 1 nonattainment areas 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 Jackson 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(i).
\5\ 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013), codified at 40 CFR 81.326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Missouri submitted the ``Nonattainment Area Plan for
the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard--
Jackson County Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area'' on October 16, 2015,
and subsequently withdrew the plan on June 11, 2018, except for the
baseline emissions inventory.
On May 4, 2018, the State submitted a request for the EPA to
determine that the Jackson 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 April 15, 2020, the EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking to approve the State's request for a clean data
determination.\6\ The proposal was based on 2016-2018 monitoring data--
the Troost monitor design value (dv) was 11 parts per billion (ppb)--
and modeling data (2016-2018 actual emissions). 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 July 9, 2020.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 85 FR 20896.
\7\ See 85 FR 41193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 18, 2021, the State submitted a request for
redesignation of the Jackson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area
to attainment and a SIP revision containing a 10-year maintenance plan
for the area. On September 7, 2021, the State submitted a supplement to
the maintenance plan, including a Consent Agreement with Vicinity and
an updated modeling demonstration to reflect the new fuel restrictions.
This proposal document discusses the EPA's review of the redesignation
request, the maintenance plan, and the supplemental information and
provides support for the EPA's proposed approval of the maintenance
plan and request to redesignate the area to attainment. Additional
analysis of the redesignation request, maintenance plan, consent
agreement, and supplemental modeling information is provided in a
Technical Support Document (TSD) included in the docket to this
proposed rulemaking.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The TSD discusses the EPA's review of some of the CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria: 107(d)(3)(E)(i) a
determination of attainment;107(d)(3)(E)(iii) a determination that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions; and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) a fully approved
maintenance plan per CAA section 175A. The discussion also covers
some of the submitted maintenance plan's elements: (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 this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59077]]
This redesignation action, if finalized, will address EPA's
obligation under a consent decree in Center for Biological Diversity,
et al. v. Regan, which establishes a deadline of March 31, 2022 for the
EPA to determine under CAA section 179(c) whether the Jackson County
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the October 4,
2018 attainment date.\9\ Under the terms of the consent decree, final
redesignation of the area to attainment before March 31, 2022, would
automatically terminate the EPA's obligation to make this determination
under CAA section 179(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Regan, No. 3:20-
cv-05436-EMC (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the EPA 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 Jackson 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 July 2020 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 monitoring data and 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 February 2021
maintenance plan, as well as the September 2021 supplemental
maintenance plan information, are based on modeling demonstrations of
permanent and enforceable emissions for sources in the nonattainment
area that demonstrate the area is attaining the standard. Therefore,
the EPA's 2020 determination that the area had achieved clean data is
consistent with the proposed action to redesignate the area.
For this proposal, the EPA reviewed quality assured monitoring data
recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) from the Troost
monitoring station. The 3-year, 2018-2020 design value for the Troost
monitor is 7 ppb, which 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 page 56.
Table 1--2015-2020 Troost Street Monitor Data (Parts per Billion (ppb)); 99th Percentile (99th %) 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troost................................................ 142 9.4 18.4 6.1 6.5 7.1 57 11 10 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Jackson 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 Jackson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area and, if
applicable,
[[Page 59078]]
that they are fully approved under section 110(k).
a. The Jackson 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 has determined
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 has determined that other section 110 elements
that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor
linked with an area's attainment status are not 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 section 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
interpretation 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 Jackson 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 June 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
[[Page 59079]]
Federal Register proposing to approve that the State met the section
172(c)(3) requirement to submit an emissions inventory for the Jackson
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 Jackson 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 Jackson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area will be able
to maintain the NAAQS as its Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program will remain in effect upon redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 81 FR 70025 (October 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, the EPA proposes to
find that 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 (September 18, 2013).
\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 l75A) 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 Jackson 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 Jackson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area under section 110
and part D of title I of the CAA.
b. The Jackson County SO2 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
Jackson 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 has determined 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 Jackson 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 Jackson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area is
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
Specifically, the EPA considers the fuel switch at Vicinity from
the combustion of coal to natural gas to be permanent and enforceable.
In 2016, Missouri issued a construction permit to Vicinity (formerly
Veolia) that included a condition to exclusively burn natural gas in
boilers 1A, 6, and 8. In addition, Vicinity's Title V operating permit
contains a condition that limits boiler 7 to combusting natural gas
only. Missouri could have submitted these permits to the EPA for
inclusion in the SIP to make these federally enforceable conditions
permanent, but Missouri has elected to enter into a Consent Agreement
with Vicinity and submit that Consent Agreement for approval into the
SIP as Appendix 1 of the September 2021 supplement to the maintenance
plan. This will also make the Consent Agreement federally enforceable.
The Consent Agreement prohibits Vicinity from combusting coal in
boilers 1A, 6, 7 and 8. It also allows Vicinity to utilize natural gas,
ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) containing no more than 15 parts per
million (ppm) sulfur by volume, biofuel containing no more than 15 ppm
sulfur by volume, or a blend of biofuel and ULSD containing no more
than 15 ppm sulfur by volume, as long as the facility obtains any
necessary air permits in the future. While the Consent Agreement may be
terminated under state law by mutual agreement by both parties at the
current time, this action, once finalized, would approve that Agreement
into the SIP. At that point the requirements of the Consent Agreement
would be permanent and federally enforceable and would remain
applicable until Missouri submits a SIP revision and the EPA approves
that revision. That revision would be subject to CAA
[[Page 59080]]
section 110(l), i.e., the state must demonstrate that the revision
would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS.
Vicinity transitioned to natural gas beginning in 2016 and ceased
burning coal completely in 2017, which significantly reduced its
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and impacts on the Troost monitor. The Troost
monitor came into compliance with the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF>
standard during 2015-2017 following Vicinity's cessation of coal
burning, and the monitor has remained in compliance since that time.
Given the well-established correlation of much lower SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions and SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations at the Troost monitor after
Vicinity ceased burning coal, the EPA anticipates that the 2010 1-hour
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS will continue to be attained. See Table 1 for
recent monitoring data trends at this monitor.
The State's initial modeling demonstration in the February 2021
maintenance plan assumed that Vicinity burns natural gas in boilers 1A,
6 and 8 and fuel oil with a sulfur content of 100 ppm in boiler 7.
Boiler 7 was not modeled as running on natural gas because the natural
gas requirement for Boiler 7 is only found in Vicinity's operating
permit, which would not be considered permanent since Title V permits
are only effective for five years and therefore must be renewed every
five years. In the September 2021 maintenance plan supplement, the
State updated the modeling demonstration based on the provision of the
Consent Agreement allowing Vicinity to burn ULSD with a sulfur content
of 15 ppm in all four of its boilers. Both the initial maintenance plan
modeling demonstration and the updated modeling demonstration submitted
with the maintenance plan supplement show compliance with the 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> standard throughout the entire Jackson County
nonattainment area.
In addition to the Vicinity facility, the State explicitly modeled
all permitted emission sources inside the nonattainment area based on
assuming continuous operation at their maximum permitted emission
levels for the five-year period from 2014-2018. These are the same
sources located in the nonattainment area that were included in the
clean data determination modeling analysis for the Jackson County
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area. The State also explicitly modeled
two sources located outside the nonattainment area: The Evergy-Hawthorn
power plant (Hawthorn) and the Ingredion facility, which produces
modified corn starches and other food ingredients. Hawthorn was modeled
as a nearby source per the EPA guidelines listed in Table 8.1 of 40 CFR
part 51, appendix W, which states that nearby sources should be modeled
based on their allowable emission rate, with adjustments to reflect
actual operational levels. Ingredion was modeled at its maximum
allowable emission rate, which is the same method used for all
permitted sources located inside the nonattainment area. The only
difference between the initial modeling demonstration submitted with
the February 2021 maintenance plan and the September 2021 updated
modeling demonstration is the derivation of Vicinity's emission rates
as described above.
The EPA is proposing to find that the modeling results demonstrate
attainment and continued maintenance of the NAAQS and that the air
quality improvement in the Jackson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment
area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
Please see the TSD for details of the modeling inputs and additional
discussion of the air quality modeling. The input files used in the
modeling demonstration are available by request from the contact listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
Criterion (4)--The Jackson 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
Jackson 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.\26\ The EPA is proposing to approve that Missouri
has met this requirement through modeling of permanent and enforceable
emission 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 2017
as the attainment emissions inventory year for developing an emissions
inventory for SO<INF>2</INF> in the nonattainment area through the 10-
year maintenance period. Please see the TSD included in the docket for
this action for details of the base year and attainment 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> Guidance, at page 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
[[Page 59081]]
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 2021,
and September 2021, supplemental 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 2014-2018 for the Hawthorn power plant); 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 as meeting the maintenance demonstration
requirement.
d. Monitoring Network
Missouri has committed to continue operating the ``appropriate
SO<INF>2</INF> network in the Jackson 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 2020 annual ambient
monitoring network plan, indicate that the Troost monitor is the only
State and Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) or SLAMS-like monitor
operational in the nonattainment area.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Missouri's 2020 Ambient Monitoring Network Plan
contained in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> Guidance at pages 67-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri has the legal authority to enforce and implement the
maintenance plan for the Jackson 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.\29\ As noted, the State will track the progress of the
maintenance plan by continuing to operate the Troost 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
compiled annually.\30\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 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).
\30\ 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 are based on monitoring data from the
Troost monitor. The EPA proposes to find it appropriate to rely on
monitoring data to trigger the contingency plan because the Troost
monitor is being relied upon to demonstrate continued maintenance in
the area as discussed in the Monitoring Network section of this
document.
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 90 ppb in a single calendar year in the
Jackson County maintenance area. The second, an ``action level
response,'' will be triggered if a violation of the NAAQS is recorded
in the Jackson 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 Jackson County
maintenance area. Specifically, the study will evaluate whether
emissions appear to be increasing and whether control measures are
needed to reverse the trend. The study shall be completed as
expeditiously as possible, but no later than 12 months after the State
has determined that a warning level response has been triggered. Any
necessary control measures would be implemented within 24 months of the
submission of certified monitoring data triggering the warning level
response.
If the action level response is triggered and is not due to an
exceptional event as defined at 40 CFR 50.1(j), measures to address the
violation shall be implemented as expeditiously as possible, but no
later than 24 months after quality-assured
[[Page 59082]]
ambient data has been entered into the AQS database indicating that
this trigger has occurred. If the exceedance is not due to an
exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a permit
condition or rule requirement, the State will conduct a study to
determine additional control measures needed to return the area to
attainment of the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> standard. The study will be
completed within six months following the action-level trigger. The
study would identify local sources causing the elevated SO<INF>2</INF>
concentrations and address the issue through potential contingency
measures including new SO<INF>2</INF> emission control requirements,
fuel-switching requirements, stack reconfigurations, or new operating
limits imposed through permit conditions, consent agreements or rules.
Another contingency measure option is the implementation of partial or
full nonattainment NSR permitting for new or modified major sources of
SO<INF>2</INF> in the Jackson County SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area.
The State would implement the selected contingency measures as
expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 24 months after an
action-level trigger has occurred.
The EPA is proposing to find that Missouri's maintenance plan meets
the ``Contingency Measures'' requirement.
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 Jackson 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
Jackson 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 select identified
potential contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the
2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of
potential violations.
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Jackson
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 Jackson
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 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. This action addresses a redesignation
determination for the Jackson County, Missouri area. Under CAA section
107(d)(3), the redesignation of an area to attainment/unclassifiable is
an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. As discussed in this document and the associated
technical support document, Missouri has demonstrated that the air
quality in the Jackson County area is attaining the NAAQS and will
continue to maintain the NAAQS. Therefore, this proposed action does
not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations
and/or indigenous peoples.
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), redesignation of an area to
attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan are
actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose
additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by
State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself
create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of
requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated
to attainment. Moreover, 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, these actions merely
approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For these
reasons, 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
[[Page 59083]]
<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 basis 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,
Intergovernmental relations, Redesignation, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: October 12, 2021.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 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), as proposed to be amended at 86 FR
34177, June 29, 2021, is further amended by adding the entry ``(35)''
in numerical order.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry ``(81)''
in numerical order.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order/permit State effective
Name of source number date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(35) Vicinity Energy-Kansas City Consent Agreement 6/25/2021........ [Date of ...................
No. APCP-2021-007. publication of
the 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 EPA approval
revision or nonattainment area State submittal date date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(81) Jackson County 1-hour SO2 Jackson County........ 2/18/2021; 9/7/2021. [Date of This action
NAAQS Maintenance Plan and publication of approves the
Maintenance Plan Supplement. the final rule Maintenance
in the Federal Plan and the
Register], Maintenance
[Federal Plan Supplement
Register for the Jackson
citation of the County area.
final rule].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 52.1343, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1343 Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.
* * * * *
(c) Redesignation to attainment. As of [date 30 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], the Jackson
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 EPA has approved its maintenance
plan and maintenance plan supplement 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 ``Jackson County, MO'' in the
table entitled ``Missouri--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS [Primary]'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 81.326 Missouri.
* * * * *
[[Page 59084]]
Missouri--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
[Primary]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation
Designated area \1\ ---------------------------------------
Date \2\ Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson County, MO.............. [Date 30 days Attainment.
after date of
publication of
the final rule
in the Federal
Register].
Jackson County (part)
The portion of Jackson
County bounded by I-70/
I-670 and the Missouri
River to the north;
and, to the west of I-
435 to the state line
separating Missouri and
Kansas.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-22746 Filed 10-25-21; 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 October 26, 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.