[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44016-44018]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17758]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13753-002, 13771-002, 13763-002, 13766-002, 13767-002]

FFP Missouri 16, LLC; FFP Missouri 15, LLC; Solia 8
Hydroelectric, LLC; FFP Missouri 13, LLC; Solia 5 Hydroelectric, LLC;
Solia 4 Hydroelectric, LLC: Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project Nos.: 13753-002; 13762-002; 13771-002; 13763-002; 13766-
002; 13767-002.
    c. Date filed: February 27, 2014.
    d. Applicant: FFP Missouri 16, LLC; FFP Missouri 15, LLC; Solia 8
Hydroelectric, LLC; FFP Missouri 13, LLC; Solia 5 Hydroelectric, LLC;
Solia 4 Hydroelectric, LLC. All applicants are subsidiaries of Free
Flow Power Corporation.
    e. Name of Projects: Opekiska Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project;
Morgantown Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project; Point Marion Lock and
Dam Hydroelectric Project; Grays Landing Lock and Dam Hydroelectric
Project; Maxwell Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project; and Monongahela
Lock and Dam Number Four Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed projects would be located at U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (Corps) dams on the Monongahela River in Monongalia
County, West Virginia and Fayette, Greene, and Washington counties,
Pennsylvania (see table below for specific locations). The projects
would occupy 39.75 acres of federal land managed by the Corps.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal land
                                                                                used by
     Project No.                Projects            County and state            City/town           project \1\
                                                                                (acres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-13753..............  Opekiska Lock and Dam....  Monongalia, WV......  Between Fairmont and               10.1
                                                                         Morgantown.
P-13762..............  Morgantown Lock and Dam..  Monongalia, WV......  Morgantown..............            0.99
P-13771..............  Point Marion Lock and Dam  Fayette, PA.........  Point Marion............            1.44
P-13763..............  Grays Landing Lock and     Greene, PA..........  Near Masontown..........           15.5
                        Dam.
P-13766..............  Maxwell Lock and Dam.....  Washington, PA......  Downstream of                      10.4
                                                                         Fredericktown.
P-13767..............  Monongahela Lock and Dam   Washington, PA......  Charleroi...............            1.32
                        Number Four.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The federal lands are managed by the Corps.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Thomas Feldman, Vice President of Project
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite
300, Boston, MA 02114; or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Ramya Swaminathan, Chief Operating Officer, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at
(978) 283-2822.
    Daniel Lissner, General Counsel, Free Flow Power Corporation, 239
Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Nicholas Ettema,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and
requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the issuance date
of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency
status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include the applicable project name(s) and docket number(s) (e.g.,
Opekiska Lock and Dam P-13753-002).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. These applications have been accepted for filing, but are not
ready for environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The proposed Opekiska Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be the most upstream project at river mile (RM) 115.4 and would consist
of the following new facilities: (1) A 180-foot-long, 95-foot-wide
intake channel directing flow to a 30-foot-long, 50-foot-high, 70-foot-
wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (2) a 120-
foot-long, 60-foot-high, 70-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse on
the west bank of the river; (3) two turbine-generator units with a
combined capacity of 6.0 megawatts (MW); (4) a 280-foot-long, 64-foot-
wide tailrace; (5) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide substation; (6) a
3,511-foot-long, 12.5-kilovolt (kV), overhead transmission line to
connect the project substation to an existing distribution line; and
(7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be
25,300 megawatt-hours (MWh).

    The proposed Morgantown Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be
located at RM 102.0 and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
280-foot-long, 80-foot-wide intake channel directing flow to a 30-foot-
long, 50-foot-high, 70-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar
spacing trashracks; (2) a 120-foot-long, 60-foot-high, 70-foot-wide
reinforced concrete powerhouse on the east bank of the river; (3) two
turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 5.0 MW; (4) a 200-
foot-long, 70-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide
substation; (6) a 2,600-foot-long, 12.5-kV, overhead transmission line
to connect the project substation to an existing distribution line; and
(7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be
18,900 MWh.
    The proposed Point Marion Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be located at RM 90.8 and consist of the following new facilities: (1)
A 280-foot-long, 90-foot-wide intake channel directing flow to a 30-
foot-long, 50-foot-high, 70-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar
spacing trashracks; (2) a 120-foot-long, 60-foot-high, 70-foot-wide
reinforced concrete powerhouse on the east bank of the river; (3) two
turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 5.0 MW; (4) a 215-
foot-long, 90-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide
substation; (6) a 3,320-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead transmission line to
connect the project substation to an existing substation; and (7)
appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be 16,500
MWh.
    The proposed Grays Landing Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be located at RM 82.0 and consist of the following new facilities: (1)
A 300-foot-long, 130-foot-wide intake channel directing flow to a 100-
foot-long, 84-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing
trashracks; (2) a 576-foot-long, 2.5-foot-high adjustable crest gate on
top of the existing dam crest; (3) a 150-foot-long, 75-foot-high, 90-
foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse on the west bank of the river;
(4) two turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 12.0 MW;
(5) a 250-foot-long, 84-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 40-foot-long by 40-
foot-wide substation; (7) a 9,965-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead
transmission line to connect the project substation to an existing
distribution line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The average annual
generation would be 47,300 MWh.
    The proposed Maxwell Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be
located at RM 61.2 and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
130-foot-long, 85-foot-wide intake channel located immediately
downstream of the Corps' 5th spillway gate on the east side of the
river; (2) a pair of spill gates totaling 84 feet wide located within
the proposed intake channel; (3) a 100-foot-long, 70-foot-high, 85-
foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (4) a
150-foot-long, 70-foot-high, 90-foot-wide reinforced concrete
powerhouse; (5) two turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of
13.0 MW; (6) a 160-foot-long, 120-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a 40-foot-
long by 40-foot-wide substation; (8) a 350-foot-long, 69/138 kV,
overhead transmission line to connect the project substation to an
existing distribution line; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The average
annual generation would be 56,800 MWh.
    The proposed Monongahela Lock and Dam Number Four Hydroelectric
Project would be located at RM 41.5 and consist of the following new
facilities: (1) A 140-foot-long, 90-foot-wide intake channel located
immediately downstream of the Corps' 5th spillway gate on the west side
of the river; (2) a pair of spill gates totaling 84 feet wide located
within the proposed intake channel; (3) a 100-foot-long, 64-foot-high,
90-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (4) a
150-foot-long, 70-foot-high, 90-foot-wide reinforced concrete
powerhouse; (5) two turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of
12.0 MW; (6) a 210-foot-long, 130-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a 40-foot-
long by 40-foot-wide substation; (8) a 45-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead
transmission line to connect the project substation to an existing
distribution line; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The average annual
generation would be 48,500 MWh.
    Free Flow Power proposes to operate all six projects in a ``run-of-
river'' mode using flows made available by the Corps. The proposed
projects would not change existing flow releases or water surface
elevations upstream or downstream of the proposed projects.
    m. A copy of each application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. Copies are also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to these or other pending projects. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.
    n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
    Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those
who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's
Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to
intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline for the
particular application.
    When the applications are ready for environmental analysis, the
Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' or ``COMPETING APPLICATION;'' (2) set forth in
the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the applications
directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant
specified in the particular application.

    Dated: July 18, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17758 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 52963]
[DOCID:fr30au10-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1931-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Texas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas (FEMA-1931-DR), dated August 3, 2010, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 18, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
August 3, 2010.

Dawson County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-21598 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: April 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 65)]
[Notices]
[Page 17085]
[DOCID:fr05ap06-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-606-000 and ER06-606-001]

BlueRock Energy, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

March 28, 2006.
    BlueRock Energy, Inc. (BlueRock) filed an application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed market-
based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy and capacity at
market-based rates. BlueRock also requested waiver of various
Commission regulations. In particular, BlueRock requested that the
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by BlueRock.
    On March 27, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the request
for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket
approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by
BlueRock should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is April 26, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Blue Rock is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Blue Rock, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approval of the Blue Rock's issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-4877 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28605-28611]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13190]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0251; FRL-9963-75-Region 7]

Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Determination of Attainment for the 2010 1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Jefferson County Nonattainment
Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Jefferson County nonattainment area, in Missouri,
has attained the 2010 1-hour primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) per the EPA's Clean Data
Policy. This proposed determination of attainment is based upon
complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data
from the 2014-2016 monitoring period, associated dispersion modeling,
and supplemental emissions inventory information, which demonstrate
that the Jefferson County area attained the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2017-0251, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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 additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA. This section provides additional information
by addressing the following:

I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. What is the background of this action?
    a. Nonattainment Designation
    b. Clean Data Policy
    c. How does a Nonattainment Area achieve ``Clean Data'' for the
2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS?
    d. What information did the state provide to the EPA to
demonstrate that the area has attained the NAAQS?
    e. What is the EPA's rationale for proposing this action?
III. What is the EPA's analysis of the state's Air Quality
Monitoring and Modeling Data, and the state's Supplemental Emissions
Inventory Information?
    a. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Evaluation
    b. Modeling Data and Supplemental 2016 Emissions Information
Evaluation
IV. What would be the effects of this action, if promulgated?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to determine that the Jefferson County 2010 1-
hour primary SO2 nonattainment area (hereby referred to as
``the nonattainment area''), in Missouri, has attained the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS.\1\ This proposed determination of
attainment is based on a February 2016 request from the state (as later
supplemented) that the EPA consider information--including complete,
quality assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data from the
2013-2015 monitoring period, with additional certified monitoring data
from 2016, associated dispersion modeling for the 2013-2015 emission
years, as well as supplemental 2016 emissions inventory information--
which show that the nonattainment area has attained the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In accordance with Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50, the 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality
monitoring site when the valid 1-hour primary standard design value
is less than or equal to 75 parts per billion (ppb). 40 CFR
50.17(b).
    \2\ In accordance with Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50, a 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS design value is valid if it encompasses
three consecutive calendar years of complete data. A year meets data
completeness requirements when all 4 quarters are complete. 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\ Monitoring data must be reported, quality assured, and
certified in accordance with the requirements set forth in 40 CFR
part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has made the monitoring data, the modeling data, the
supplemental emissions inventory information and additional information
submitted by the state to support this proposed action available in the
docket to this rulemaking through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA
Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

II. What is the background of this action?

a. Nonattainment Designation

    On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520), the EPA established a health-based
1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS at 75 ppb. Upon promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d) of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) requires the EPA to designate any area that does not meet (or
that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not
meet) the NAAQS as nonattainment. On August 5, 2013, the EPA designated
a portion of Jefferson County, Missouri, as nonattainment for the 2010
1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS, effective October 4, 2013.\4\ 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). The effective
date of the nonattainment designation was October 4, 2013. This action
established an attainment date five years after the effective date for
the areas designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
(i.e., by October 4, 2018). The state was also required to submit a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013), codified at 40 CFR 81.326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Clean Data Policy

    Where states request a clean data determination of a designated
SO2 NAAQS nonattainment area, the EPA will determine whether
or not an area has attained the NAAQS based on air quality monitoring
data (when available) and air quality dispersion modeling information
for the affected area as necessary. The EPA issued ``Clean Data''
policy memoranda for SO2 and other NAAQS describing reduced
attainment planning requirements for nonattainment areas that attain
the NAAQS, but have not yet been redesignated as
attainment.5 6 Additionally, the EPA has issued national
rulemakings that have codified this policy for ozone and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.\7\ Under the Clean Data
policy, the EPA interprets the requirements of the CAA that are
specifically designed to help an area achieve attainment, such as
attainment demonstrations and implementation of reasonably available
control measures (including reasonably available control technology),
reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations, and contingency
measures, to be suspended as long as air quality continues to meet the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Memorandum of December 14, 2004, from Steve Page, Director,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the EPA Air
Division Directors, ``Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' This document is available
at: http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/guidance.htm.
    \6\ The memorandum of April 23, 2014, from Steve Page, Director,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the EPA Air
Division Directors ``Guidance for 1-hr SO2 Nonattainment
Area SIP Submissions'' provides guidance for the application of the
clean data policy to the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS.
This document is available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
    \7\ See, e.g., 81 FR 58010, 81 FR 58127-58129 (August 24, 2016)
(promulgating 40 CFR 51.1015); 80 FR 12264, 80 FR 12296
(promulgating 51.1118). See also 70 FR 71612, 70 FR 71664-46
(November 29, 2005); 72 FR 20585, 72 FR 20603-20605 (April 25,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the memorandum of April 23, 2014, from Steve Page, Director, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the EPA Air Division
Directors ``Guidance for 1-hr SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions'' (2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance), the
EPA explained its intention to extend the Clean Data Policy to 1-hour
SO2 nonattainment areas that attained the standard. As noted
therein, the legal bases set forth in the various guidance documents
and regulations establishing the Clean Data Policy for other pollutants
are equally pertinent to all NAAQS.\8\ This proposed rule is also
consistent with prior actions of the EPA applying the Clean Data Policy
to two other nonattainment areas under the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See court cases upholding legal basis for the EPA's Clean
Data Determination Policy, NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d at 1258-61 (D.C.
Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996);
Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, 315 Fed. App. 651, 652 (9th Cir. 2009).
    \9\ 82 FR 13227 (March 10, 2016) and 81 FR 28718 (May 10, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clean data determinations are not redesignations to attainment. For
the EPA to redesignate an area to attainment, a state must submit and
receive full approval of a redesignation request that satisfies all of
the statutory criteria for redesignation to attainment, including a
demonstration that the improvement in the area's air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions; have a fully approved SIP that
meets all of the applicable requirements under CAA section 110 and CAA
part D; and have a fully approved maintenance plan.

c. How does a nonattainment area achieve ``clean data'' for the 2010 1-
hour primary SO2 NAAQS?

    Generally, the EPA relies on ambient air quality monitoring data
alone in order to make determinations of attainment for areas
designated nonattainment for a particular NAAQS. However, given the
Agency's historical approach toward SO2, the source-specific
nature of SO2 emissions, and the localized effect of those
emissions, in the preamble to the 2010 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS rulemaking, the EPA stated that it did not expect to rely solely
on monitored air quality data in all areas when determining if an area
has attained the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS (75 FR
35551). As the EPA noted in the preamble, in order for the EPA to
determine that an area is attaining the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS, dispersion modeling may be needed to show no
violating receptors even if a monitoring site showed no violations.\10\
This was because, as the EPA explained in the preamble, the Agency did
not expect that most existing SO2 monitors were well sited
to record maximum 1-hour ambient SO2 concentrations under
the new NAAQS. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance
states that, in order for a nonattainment area that was designated
based on air quality monitoring data to be determined as attaining the
NAAQS, the state would need to meet a series of criteria. First, the
state would need to demonstrate that the area is meeting the standard
based on three consecutive calendar years of air quality monitoring
that is complete and quality-assured (consistent with 40 CFR part 58
requirements). Second, the state would need to either (1) provide
modeling of the most recent three years of actual

emissions for the area or (2) provide a demonstration that the affected
monitor(s) is or are located in the area of maximum concentration. As
explained in more detail later in this section, the EPA believes that
it is permissible to substitute current source-specific allowable
emissions for actual emissions for the purpose of demonstrating (1) in
this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As noted in the preamble to the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35551), this has been the EPA's general
position throughout the history of implementation of the
SO2 NAAQS program. See, e.g., ``Air Quality Control
Regions, Criteria, and Control techniques; Attainment Status
Designations,'' 43 FR 40412, 43 FR 40415-43 FR 40416 (September 11,
1978); ``Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria, and Control
Techniques,'' 43 FR 45993, 43 FR 46000-43 FR 46002 (October 5,
1978); ``Air Quality Implementation Plans: State Implementation
Plans; General Preamble,'' 57 FR 13498, 57 FR 13545, 57 FR 13547-57
FR 13557, 57 FR 13548 (April 16, 1992); ``Approval and Promulgation
of State Implementation Plans; Call for Sulfur Dioxide SIP Revisions
for Billings/Laurel, MT,'' 58 FR 41430 (August 4, 1993);
``Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio,'' 59
FR 12886, 59 FR 12887 (March 18, 1994); ``Ambient Air Quality
Standards, National and Implementation Plans for Sulfur Oxides
(Sulfur Dioxide),'' 60 FR 12492, 60 FR 12494-60 FR 12495 (March 7,
1995); ``Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approval and
Promulgation: Various States: Montana,'' 67 FR 22167, 67 FR 22170-67
FR 22171, 67 FR 22183-67 FR 22887 (May 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a demonstration shows that the monitor(s) is or are located in
the area of maximum concentration, the EPA believes that it may be
appropriate to determine that the nonattainment area is attaining the
standard based on monitoring data alone. The state did not submit a
demonstration that the monitor was located in the area of maximum
concentration, therefore its submittal needed to provide a modeling
demonstration in support of a clean data determination.
    The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance states that,
when air agencies provide monitoring and/or modeling to support clean
data determinations, the monitoring data provided by the state should
follow the EPA's ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented
Monitoring Technical Assistance Document'' (SO2 monitoring
TAD) and the modeling provided by the state should follow the EPA's
``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance
Document'' (SO2 Modeling TAD).11 12 The
SO2 Modeling TAD outlines modeling approaches for future
SO2 NAAQS attainment status designations and states that,
for the purposes of modeling to characterize air quality for use in
SO2 designations, the EPA recommends using a minimum of the
most recent three years of actual emissions data and concurrent
meteorological data to allow the modeling to simulate what a monitor
would observe. Additionally, the SO2 Modeling TAD indicates
that it is acceptable to use allowable emission rates instead of actual
emission rates. Although past actual emissions could have been higher
than those under the most recent allowable rate, the SO2
Modeling TAD reflects the EPA's belief that it is reasonable to account
for any lower allowable limits currently in place when determining if
an area is attaining the NAAQS. In addition, the SO2
Modeling TAD indicates that, where an allowable emissions limit has
been lowered during the relevant three-year period (such as through the
implementation of emissions controls), the air agency may rely on the
new limit in demonstrating that the modeled limit assures attainment.
In this fashion, the most recent permitted or potential to emit rate
should be used along with a minimum of the most recent three years of
meteorological data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented
Monitoring Draft Technical Assistance Document, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, May
2013, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2monitoringtad.pdf.
    \12\ The SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical
Assistance Document, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Air Quality Assessment Division, May 2013, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf.
    \13\ See page 10 of the SO2 Modeling TAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that modeling a mix of current allowable emissions
and actual emissions would be permissible in such an analysis as long
as the same type of emissions are used for each source for all three
years. For instance, if a state decided to use current allowables for a
facility in a modeling analysis, the state would need to use current
allowables for all three years of the analysis for that facility. The
state would not necessarily need to use current allowables for the
other sources in the analysis (i.e., actuals would be permissible for
all three years for other sources in the area). The EPA believes this
kind of analysis is appropriate for both designations and clean data
determinations, both of which use the analysis to determine whether the
area is currently meeting the NAAQS.
    The EPA recognizes that its 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance does not on its face suggest that modeling allowable emissions
would be an acceptable alternative to modeling actual emissions in the
clean data determination or redesignations contexts. However, the
Agency considers it to have been an oversight on its part not to have
addressed this alternative possibility in the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance, as the Agency clearly has endorsed the use
of both actual emissions and allowable emissions in the SO2
Modeling TAD in general and in the recent rounds of area designations
under the SO2 NAAQS, in contexts where, as here, the Agency
is making a factual judgment about whether an area has attained the
NAAQS. Moreover, the 2014 guidance also suggests that modeling of
allowables emissions, combined with other information, could also be
used to determine whether, after the attainment deadline has passed,
areas in fact timely attained the NAAQS under CAA section 179.
Therefore, although the SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance was
silent on using allowable emissions in the clean data determination and
redesignations contexts, the EPA believes it is not inconsistent with
the guidance to endorse that practice now, provided the allowables-
based modeling is conducted appropriately pursuant to the
SO2 Modeling TAD and applicable EPA regulations such as
those governing stack heights and dispersion techniques at 40 CFR
51.100 and 40 CFR 51.118.

d. What information did the state provide to the EPA to demonstrate
that the area attained the NAAQS?

    On February 2, 2016, the state submitted a request asking the EPA
to determine that the nonattainment area attained the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS per the EPA's Clean Data Policy. The
request included the most recent three years of complete, quality
assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data from the 2013-2015
monitoring period; the design value for 2013-2015 was 66.0 ppb. In a
response letter, dated March 4, 2016, the EPA stated that, because the
request did not include a modeling demonstration showing attainment
utilizing the most recent three years of actual emissions or a
demonstration that the monitor was located in the area of maximum
concentration for the nonattainment area, the state's request did not
contain the necessary supporting information as outlined in the EPA's
2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance. In a letter dated
August 4, 2016, the state provided modeling of the most recent three
years of actual emissions (2013-2015) for the nonattainment area.
However, in the provided modeling, the Doe Run Herculaneum facility was
zeroed out despite the fact that the facility was still operating in
2013.\14\ On November 9, 2016, the EPA asked the state (via email) to
provide additional information regarding the exclusion of emissions
from the Doe Run Herculaneum facility for the 2013-2015 emission years
from the modeling demonstration as well as additional information
regarding its selection of the 2014 emissions data year as a surrogate
for the interactive sources' emissions.\15\ The state submitted
supporting information to the EPA on November 21, 2016. In its November

2016 submittal the state spoke to the complexity of modeling fugitive
emissions from the Doe Run Herculaneum facility and the appropriateness
of utilizing 2014 emissions as a surrogate for the interactive sources.
On February 22, 2017, the state provided additional supplemental
information that consisted of available 2016 emissions inventory
information. On May 1, 2017, the EPA received email notification from
the state that its 2016 ambient air quality data was certified as
complete and continues to show attainment of the standard; the design
value for 2014-2016 is 23.0 ppb. These communications are available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Doe Run Herculaneum (Herculaneum) facility was a lead
smelting facility identified by the state and the EPA as the largest
source of SO2 emissions in Jefferson County at the time
of the promulgation of nonattainment designations in 2013. The
facility ceased operations in December 2013. Although the source
operated in 2013, emitting 11,477 tons of SO2, the state
zeroed out its emissions in each of the 2013-2015 emission years in
the modeling information.
    \15\ The state modeled all interactive sources utilizing the
sources' 2014 emission limits (essentially modeling the 2014
emissions input three times). The EPA requested that the state
confirm that utilizing 2014 as a surrogate for 2013 and 2015 was
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. What is the EPA's rationale for proposing this action?

    The EPA is proposing to issue a determination of attainment for the
nonattainment area based on the area's 2013-2015 modeling
demonstration, which is supported by monitoring data from the Mott
Street monitor. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance and
the accompanying 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD allow for
nonattainment areas to model a mix of actual emissions and current
allowable emissions, and as noted previously, we interpret that
document to also allow this approach for a clean data determination.
    The state modeled actual emissions for all sources except for the
Doe Run Herculaneum facility, which was modeled at zero emissions,
since the facility shut down in December 2013.\16\ This treatment of
the Doe Run Herculaneum facility is appropriate because the
demonstration includes emissions for Doe Run Herculaneum using the most
recent allowable emissions rate, which has been permanently and
enforceably lowered during the relevant period. The maximum modeled
impact from the model scenario is 172.8 [mu]g/m3, or 66 ppb, which
complies with the 1-hour standard of 75 ppb. The model results satisfy
the criteria for determinations of attainment according to the EPA's
guidance and policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Doe Run was limited to the terms of a consent decree
applicable to the Herculaneum facility entered into by Doe Run,
Missouri, and EPA in the United States District Court in the Eastern
District of Missouri, Case No. 4:10-cv-01895-JCH on December 21,
2011 (2011 Consent Decree). On December 31, 2013, pursuant to the
terms of the 2011 Consent Decree, Doe Run permanently ceased
operations of the sintering plant. The 2011 Consent Decree also
required Doe Run to permanently cease smelting operations and retire
the blast furnaces by April 30, 2014; Doe Run ceased operation of
the blast furnaces on December 31, 2013, concurrently with the
cessation of operation of the sintering plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the EPA's analysis of the state's air quality monitoring
and modeling data, and the state's supplemental emissions inventory
information?

a. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Evaluation

    According to the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance,
to support a clean data determination based on monitoring, the state
needs to demonstrate that the area is meeting the standard based on
three consecutive calendar years of complete and quality-assured air
quality monitoring data (consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements).
The EPA has determined that three complete consecutive calendar years
of quality-assured air quality monitoring data from the Mott Street
monitor have been recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), and
the data meets the requirements of Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50 and 40
CFR part 58. This data suggests improved air quality in the
nonattainment area. As shown in Table 1, the 99th percentile 1-hour
average (in ppb) at the Mott Street Monitor has decreased after 2013,
when the Doe Run Herculaneum facility ceased primary smelting
operations. As shown in Table 2, during the 2014-2016 monitoring
period, the nonattainment area met the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS. The certified annual design value for the
nonattainment area for the 2014-2016 monitoring period is 23.0 ppb.
Although clean data at a monitor sited in the area of maximum
concentration could be sufficient for purposes of a clean data
determination under the EPA's guidance, the state did not submit a
demonstration showing that the Mott Street monitor is located in the
area of maximum concentration. Thus, the monitoring data on its own is
not sufficient to support a clean data determination in this case, and,
as such, the state submitted modeling to support the clean data
determination.

          Table 1--99th Percentile 1-Hour Average in Parts per Billion (ppb) at the Mott Street Monitor
                                                   [2013-2016]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Monitor                 Site name          2013            2014            2015            2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29-099-0027...................  Mott Street.....             143              18              38              13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 2--1-Hour Primary SO2 NAAQS Design Value (dv) for the Mott Street Monitor 99th Percentile 1-Hour Average
                              in Parts per Billion (ppb) at the Mott Street Monitor
                                                   [2014-2016]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                        County             Monitor           Site name              dv
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO................................  Jefferson............     29-099-0027  Mott Street..........            23.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Modeling Data and Supplemental 2016 Emissions Information Evaluation

    As noted earlier, the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance states that, in order for the EPA to make a clean data
determination, the state may need to submit information in addition to
monitoring data if the area was designated nonattainment based on air
quality monitoring data. In August 2016, the state submitted modeling
data for the most recent three years (2013-2015).\17\ In February 2017,
the state submitted supplemental preliminary 2016 emissions data in
support of assumptions made in the 2013-2015 modeling
demonstration.\18\ The EPA reviewed the submitted modeling data

and supporting 2016 preliminary emissions data information for the
nonattainment area to determine consistency with the EPA's Clean Data
Policy, the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance and the
2016 SO2 Modeling TAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The state's submittal included 2013-2015 emissions data as
it was the complete and quality assured data set at the time of the
submittal. The submittal includes a table of the sources included in
the model and the emission rates used in the model. This information
is provided in the docket.
    \18\ 2016 emissions data submitted by the state in February 2017
included only data quality assured as of September 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA reviewed the August 2016 submittal to determine if the
appropriate meteorological inputs were utilized. The state determined
that the 2013-2015 meteorological data collected at the Doe Run
Herculaneum meteorological sites were inappropriate for use in the
model analysis as the data were disjointed. The data were disjointed
due to a 2013 Consent Judgment between the state and Doe Run that
allowed Doe Run Herculaneum to cease meteorological measurements at
certain towers and to move the remaining tower to allow for site
remediation. The state elected to use the most recent full three-year
period (2013-2015) of data as measured at a spatially representative
NWS airport site. The state utilized the St. Louis, Missouri downtown
airport (Cahokia) for surface data and the Lincoln, Illinois site for
upper air data. The meteorological data from the time period of 2013-
2015 was processed and paired with the emissions data as discussed
later in this preamble. The EPA believes that the utilization of
meteorological data from these sites was appropriate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See the state's August 2016 modeling demonstration,
provided in the docket to this action, for model selection
information (i.e., receptor grid selection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA finds that the state sufficiently considered all
significant sources of SO2 emissions for inclusion in the
modeling demonstration, including permitted sources of SO2
emissions inside of the nonattainment area boundary, nearby sources
(located within 20 kilometers (km) of the nonattainment area boundary
and emitting greater than 1 ton per year (tpy) of SO2)
outside the nonattainment area boundary, and large sources (sources
that emit greater than 2,000 tpy of SO2) located within 50
km of the nonattainment boundary. The EPA finds the modeled source
inventory was created in accordance with the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance and the 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD.
    To characterize the emissions from the sources in the modeling
inventory, the state used hourly varying emissions, as reported to the
EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) program database, for three of
the fifteen sources, and the 2014 actual emissions, as reported in the
Missouri Emission Inventory System (MoEIS), for the remaining twelve
sources. For the remaining twelve sources, the state converted the
annual emissions to hourly emission rates utilizing operational hours
reported by the facilities (as hourly emissions were not available for
these twelve sources). The state's November 2016 supplemental
information indicated that the state evaluated actual emissions for
each year in the three-year period (2013-2015) separately. As can be
expected, there were variations in hourly emissions during the modeled
time period (2013-2015); emissions from either 2013 or 2015 were
slightly higher than the 2014 emissions for six of the twelve sources.
As such, in the November 2016 supplemental information, the state
revised the modeling to reflect the highest hourly emissions (either
reported to CAMD or converted to hourly emission rates by the State)
for each interactive source during the three-year period. The variation
in emissions resulted in only a 0.02 percent increase on the model-
predicted concentrations; the highest modeled impact increased from
172.82 [mu]g/m\3\ to 172.85 [mu]g/m\3\. Considering the variation
resulted in only a 0.02 percent increase on the predicted modeling
concentrations, the EPA agrees with the state's assertion that the use
of hourly emission data (either reported to CAMD or converted to hourly
emission rates by the State) from 2014 for the interactive sources was
a reasonable representation of the time period.
    The state did not include emissions from Doe Run Herculaneum in the
modeling demonstration for any of the 2013-2015 emission years. The
state modeled the facility at zero emissions from 2013-2015 even though
the facility's primary smelting operation was active during 2013.\20\
The EPA believes that this modeling analysis supports the rationale
outlined in section II.e. for proposing the clean data determination.
The EPA believes that modeling the Doe Run Herculaneum facility at zero
emissions is in accordance with the 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD as
it is representative of current allowable emissions at the source.
Because the EPA is interpreting that the 2016 SO2 Modeling
TAD's provision for modeling a mix of current allowables and actuals
for area designations is also appropriate for purposes of a clean data
determination, the EPA finds that the emissions from all modeled
sources were characterized appropriately in the model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Herculaneum emitted an estimated 11,477 tons of
SO2 in 2013 prior to it ceasing operations in December of
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously described, the state submitted additional information
to the EPA in February 2017. In this submittal, the state acknowledged
that that emissions data for the 4th quarter of 2016 was not yet
available nor quality assured for modeling purposes. Most of the
modeled source inventory data will not be available until at least mid-
2017. However, the state compared ``data elements of 2016'' to 2013 to
determine whether the 2013 data could serve as a surrogate for 2016
data.\21\ The state asserted that, because the August 2016 modeling
demonstration used actual emissions for the period 2013-2015 for all
sources except Doe Run Herculaneum, a modeling demonstration for the
period 2014-2016 would likely yield similar results because Doe Run
Herculaneum was not operational in any of those three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Key data elements included meteorological data, available
emission data and monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The supplemental information submitted by the state included an
examination of variations in meteorology and in modeled source
inventory emissions. This included a qualitative climatological
comparison between the years 2013 and 2016 for the St. Louis, Missouri
downtown airport location and highlighted the similarities and
differences observed in those years. The state asserted that the
meteorological information indicates that the differences in
meteorological conditions from 2013 to 2016 are insignificant.
    The state also provided 2016 emissions information, as reported to
CAMD, for the three EGUs (Ameren's Labadie, Meramec and Rush Island
facilities) and compared them to the modeled 2013 emissions data.
Partial data for 2016 (through September 30, 2016) emissions data was
provided in CAMD; the state compared available 2016 emissions data
(January 1, 2016-September 30, 2016) to 2013 emissions data for these
three sources.22 23 For 2016, the three reported quarters
were extrapolated to a full year for an annual comparison.\24\ This
extrapolation assumed a continuation of comparable

emission levels. The extrapolated 2016 data indicated that the Labadie
facility's SO2 emissions decreased 21 percent, the Meramec
facility's SO2 emissions decreased 23 percent and the Rush
Island facility's SO2 emissions decreased 3 percent from
2013 annual emission rates. The state also asserted that updating the
modeling data to include 2014-2016 emissions and meteorological
information would not change the outcome of the previously submitted
modeling information (which utilized 2013-2015 data) that modeled
attainment of the NAAQS. Essentially, the state claimed, the maximum
modeled impact from the model scenario (172.8 [mu]g/m\3\ or 66 ppb in
the northwest portion of the nonattainment area) utilizing 2013-2015
emission data without Doe Run Herculaneum emissions, is indicative of
2014-2016 air quality without contributions from the Doe Run
Herculaneum facility and demonstrates that the nonattainment area has
attained the standard of 75 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Ameren's Labadie and Meramec facilities are not in the
nonattainment area but are within 50 km of the nonattainment area
and emit greater than 2,000 tpy of SO2. Therefore, they
were included in the state's modeling demonstration and subsequent
supplemental information.
    \23\ All emissions data used in the analysis are available
through the EPA's CAMD database online. https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/clean-air-markets-data-resources.
    \24\ The first three quarters of 2016 were extrapolated to a
full year for annual comparison by multiplying by 75 percent (x/
0.75).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the state's analysis of available 2016 emissions and
meteorology data is informative, the EPA interprets that the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance and the 2016 SO2
Modeling TAD allows for modeling of a mix of actual emissions and
current allowable emissions to support a clean data determination, and
therefore the state's 2013-2015 modeling demonstration is sufficient to
allow an assessment as to whether the area has achieved clean data.
    The EPA acknowledges the Doe Run Herculaneum facility's primary
smelting operation is permanently shut down and recognizes the
corresponding relationship between the decrease in the emissions from
Doe Run Herculaneum and the decreased monitored concentrations at the
Mott Street monitor as seen in table 3. The maximum hourly
SO2 concentration was reduced by 87 percent from 2013 (143
ppb) to 2014 (18 ppb) after the Doe Run Herculaneum facility closed. A
comparison of the 99th percentile 1-hr average from the last full
production year (2012) to the first post-shutdown year (2014) shows a
93 percent reduction in monitored SO2 concentrations.

 Table 3--Decrease in Doe Run Herculaneum SO2 Emissions vs. the Decrease
              in Monitored 99th Percentile 1-Hour Averages
                               [2012-2015]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               99th
                                           percentile 1-    Herculaneum
                  Year                     hour  average   SO2 emissions
                                               (ppb)           (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012....................................             268          17,894
2013....................................             143          11,477
2014....................................              18              <1
2015....................................              38              <1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum modeled impact from the 2013-2015 model scenario is
172.8 [mu]g/m\3\ or 66 ppb which complies with the 1-hour standard of
75 ppb. The model results, along with monitored attainment of the NAAQS
at the Mott Street monitor for the same time period, satisfies the
criteria for clean data according to the EPA's guidance. Certified and
quality assured 2016 air quality monitoring data is indicative of a
substantial improvement in SO2 air quality in the
nonattainment area; the design value for 2014-2016 is 23.0 ppb.
Missouri's monitoring data, technical modeling analysis and
supplemental information all support an EPA determination, consistent
with its Clean Data Policy, that the nonattainment area has clean data
and warrants a clean data determination.

VI. What would be the effects of this action, if promulgated?

    If this proposed determination is made final, the requirements for
the state to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs revisions
related to attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS
shall be suspended until such time, if any, that the EPA subsequently
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal
Register, that the area has violated the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS. If this were to occur, the basis for the
suspension of the specific SIP requirements would no longer exist, and
the state would thereafter have to address the pertinent requirements.
If finalized, this determination of attainment would not shield the
area from other required actions, such as provisions to address
pollution transport, which could require emission reductions at sources
or other types of emission activities contributing significantly to
nonattainment in other areas or states, or interfering with maintenance
in those areas. The EPA has the authority to require emissions
reductions as necessary and appropriate to deal with transported air
pollution situations. See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D), 110(a)(2)(A), and
126.
    If, after considering any comments received on this proposal, the
EPA finalizes a clean data determination for this area, the state would
need to continue to monitor and/or model air quality to verify
continued attainment. The air agency would be expected to continue to
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network in the affected
area, in accordance with the EPA regulations, to verify the attainment
status of the area (see 40 CFR part 58).
    This proposed clean data determination is limited to a
determination that the area attained the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS as evidenced by the state's monitoring data and
modeling analysis; this proposed action, if finalized, would not
constitute a redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3) of the
CAA. The designation status of the nonattainment area will remain
nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS until
such time as the state submits an approvable redesignation request and
maintenance plan, and the EPA takes final rulemaking action to
determine that such submission meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality
monitoring data and modeling and would, if finalized, result in the
suspension of certain Federal requirements and would not impose any
additional requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:
     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);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur dioxide, attainment determination.

    Dated: June 5, 2017.
Edward H, Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2017-13190 Filed 6-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P