[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 173 (Friday, September 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55283-55286]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19668]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677; FRL-10014-28]

Final Lists Identifying Manufacturers Subject to Fee Obligations
for EPA-Initiated Risk Evaluations Under Section 6 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA); Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As required by the final rule on fees for the administration
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (the Fees Rule), in which
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established fees to defray
some of the costs of administering certain provisions of TSCA, EPA this
document announces the availability of the final lists identifying the
manufacturers (including importers) of the 20 chemical substances that
have been designated as a High-Priority Substance for risk evaluation
and for which fees will be charged. In January 2020, EPA announced the
availability of and solicited public comment on the preliminary lists
identifying manufacturers subject to fee obligations for EPA-initiated
risk evaluations under TSCA. During the comment period, which closed on
June 15, 2020, manufacturers (including importers) were also required
to self-identify as a manufacturer of one of the 20 High-Priority
Substances irrespective of whether they are included on the preliminary
lists. Where appropriate, entities had the opportunity to avoid or
reduce fee obligations by making certain certifications consistent with
the Fees Rule. The public had the opportunity to correct errors or
provide comments on

the preliminary lists. Manufacturers (including importers) identified
on the final list will be subject to applicable fees.

DATES: Effective on August 27, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Benjamin Dyson, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 774-8976; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to entities that manufacture (including import)
one or more of the High-Priority Substances currently undergoing a risk
evaluation under TSCA section 6(b). The action may also be of interest
to chemical processors, distributors in commerce, and users; non-
governmental organizations in the environmental and public health
sectors; state and local government agencies; and members of the
public. The Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities and corresponding NAICS codes for entities that may be
interested in or affected by this action.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of the final lists identifying
manufacturers (including importers) that are subject to fee obligations
under 40 CFR 700.45. These entities manufacture or import one or more
of the 20 High-Priority Substances subject to EPA-initiated risk
evaluations under TSCA section 6.

C. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    As amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-182, see also https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act), TSCA authorizes EPA to establish, by
rule, a fee structure to defray some of the costs of administering
certain provisions of TSCA. Pursuant to the Fees Rule, the Agency will
collect payment from identified manufacturers (including importers) who
manufacture (including import) a chemical substance that is the subject
of a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b) (Ref. 1). As intended by
Congress, these fees are a sustainable source of funds for EPA to
fulfill its legal obligation to conduct risk evaluations to determine
whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment, as required under TSCA section 6. Pursuant
to TSCA section 6(b) and its implementing regulations, EPA has
designated 20 chemical substances as High-Priority Substances for risk
evaluation (Ref. 2) (84 FR 71924, December 30, 2019) (FRL-10003-15);
those substances are listed in Unit III. EPA is now identifying the
manufacturers (including importers) that are subject to fee obligations
associated with the risk evaluations of these High-Priority Substances.

D. What is the Agency's authority for this action?

    TSCA provides EPA with authority to establish fees to defray a
portion of the costs associated with administering EPA-initiated TSCA
section 6 risk evaluations. On September 27, 2018, EPA finalized a rule
imposing a fee for persons who manufacture (including import) a
chemical substance that is the subject of an EPA-initiated risk
evaluation under TSCA section 6 (Ref. 1). The requirements for those
fee payments are codified in 40 CFR 700.45.

II. Background

A. How was the final list developed?

    TSCA section 6(b)(1) requires EPA to prioritize chemical substances
as High-Priority Substances for risk evaluation. In accordance with
TSCA section 6(b) and 40 CFR 702.7, on March 21, 2019, EPA initiated
the prioritization process for 20 chemical substances identified as
candidates for High-Priority Substance designation (Ref. 3). On August
23, 2019, EPA proposed to designate the same 20 chemical substances as
High-Priority Substances for risk evaluation (Ref. 4). EPA finalized
the High-Priority Substance designations of the same 20 chemical
substance proposed for High-Priority Substance designations (Ref. 2)
and announced on January 27, 2020 the availability of the preliminary
lists for the 20 High-Priority Substances designated (Ref. 5) (see
docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677). EPA provided a 60-day comment period,
with two additional extensions closing the second comment period on
June 15, 2020 (Ref. 6 and Ref. 7) (March 13 (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677-0058) and May 28
(https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677-0087).
    EPA developed each preliminary list using the most up-to-date
information available, from information submitted to the Agency (i.e.,
information submitted under TSCA section 8(a) (including the Chemical
Data Reporting (CDR) Rule) and TSCA section 8(b), and the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI)). To include the two most recent CDR reporting
cycle data (collected every four years) and to account for annual or
other typical fluctuations in manufacturing (including import), EPA
used six years of data submitted or available to the Agency under CDR
and TRI to create the preliminary lists (2012-2018). EPA considered
using other sources of information available to the Agency, such as
publicly available information (e.g., Panjiva, Datamyne) or information
submitted to other agencies to which EPA has access (e.g., U.S. Customs
and Border Protection data) but concluded that data quality limitations
would create more false positives than appropriate additions to the
lists. Following publication of the preliminary lists, manufacturers of
the 20 High-Priority Substances who had manufactured or imported the
chemical substance in the previous five years were required to self-
identify to EPA, irrespective of whether they were included in the
preliminary lists. See 40 CFR 700.45(b)(5).
    EPA is now announcing the final list of manufacturers (including
importers) for the 20 High-Priority Substances who are responsible for
fee payments (Ref. 8). EPA is also providing the list of companies that
certified to ceasing manufacture for each of the 20 High-Priority
Substances (Ref. 9).
    EPA believes the requirement to self-identify, established by 40
CFR 700.45(b)(5), was sufficient to identify additional manufacturers
(including importers). Manufacturers (including importers) on the
preliminary lists had an opportunity to certify through CDX that: (1)
They had already ceased manufacturing prior to the defined cutoff dates
and will not manufacture (including import) for five years; or (2) they
have not manufactured the chemical substance in the five-year period
preceding publication of the preliminary lists. For this group of 20
chemicals, the cutoff date for ceasing manufacture or import of a
chemical substance was March 20, 2019, which is the day prior to
initiation of the prioritization process for the applicable designated
High-Priority Substance. If EPA received such a certification statement
from a manufacturer, then the manufacturer was not identified on the

final list and will not be obligated to pay the fee. Additionally, EPA
found that the broad scope of the current Fees Rule unintentionally
imposes potentially significant burdens on importers of chemical
substances in articles, and manufacturers of byproducts and impurities,
and that certain stakeholders would be obligated to undertake
significant and burdensome efforts to attempt to determine the presence
of the 20 High-Priority Substances in their products and processes. EPA
announced the Agency's intention to immediately begin the rulemaking
process to amend the Fees Rule to propose exemptions to the self-
identification requirements in the Fees Rule associated with EPA-
initiated risk evaluations for three categories of manufacturers of
chemical substances subject to such risk evaluations: (1) Importers of
articles containing the chemical substances; (2) producers of the
chemical substances as a byproduct; and (3) producers or importers of
the chemical substances as an impurity. As a bridge to the final
revised rule EPA provided a ``No Action Assurance'' on March 24, 2020
(Ref. 10).
    Additionally, the Agency was asked whether a manufacturer that has
ceased manufacture of one of the 20 High-Priority Substances prior to
the cutoff date for ceasing manufacture or import of a chemical
substance (March 2019) other than manufacture in the three categories
impacted by the planned regulatory change, and that also commits to not
manufacturing the chemical in the future five years, other than in
those same three categories should be subject to fee obligations. The
Agency responded that in light of the rulemaking announcement, EPA does
not expect to identify entities who otherwise meet the criteria for
``cessation'' except for manufacture or potential manufacture in one of
the three categories--and who certify as such in the ``Additional
Information'' field in CDX--on the final lists of responsible fee
payers. Finally, entities had the opportunity to certify as to whether
they meet the definition of a ``small business concern'' as defined in
the Fees Rule and qualify for an 80% reduced fee amount.

B. What are the final lists and fee obligations of manufacturers
(including importers)?

    This Notice announces the availability of EPA's final list of
manufacturers (including importers) of the 20 High-Priority Substances
subject to risk evaluation who are responsible for payment of fees, as
required by 40 CFR 700.45 (Ref. 2). The final lists are available at
docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677 at http://www.regulations.govand on
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/TSCA-fees. Also included in the
docket are the list of companies that certified to having ceased
manufacturing by March 20, 2019 and have no plans to restart
manufacturing in the next five years (Ref. 9) as well as those that
certified to not manufacturing the chemical substance in the five-year
period preceding publication of the preliminary lists (Ref. 11). The
``Certification of Cessation'' list also includes those manufacturers
who ceased manufacturing by March 20, 2019 except for manufacture of a
byproduct, or impurity or in an article. The final list of
manufacturers differs from the preliminary lists (see docket number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677) for several reasons. For example, many CDR/TRI
manufacturers that were identified on the preliminary list had either
ceased manufacturing prior to the cutoff dates were not manufacturers
(or importers) of the chemical substances. Such entities were not
included on the final lists. Other entities from the preliminary lists,
in accordance with the planned regulatory change, that only
manufactured (or imported) chemicals as a byproduct, impurity, or in an
article and certified as such, were not included in the final list. The
only company that self-identified for TCEP imported a very small
quantity in 2019 for R&D use only. The Agency used the discretion
offered by the TSCA Fees Rule to not collect a fee from this one
company. As a result, there are no fees associated with the risk
evaluation for tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate (115-96-8). The TSCA Fees
Rule provides EPA flexibility to refine the final list of manufacturers
in a manner that is reasonable and prudent, in light of statutory and
regulatory obligations related to TSCA risk evaluations and associated
fee payment obligations. As such, the Agency decided to not charge a
fee to those importers who were only importing small quantities of the
20 HPS for research and development purposes only.
    This document announces the availability of EPA's final list of
manufacturers (including importers) of the 20 High-Priority Substances
subject to risk evaluation who are responsible for payment of fees, as
required by 40 CFR 700.45 (Ref. 2). The final lists are available at
docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677 at http://www.regulations.gov and
on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/TSCA-fees. Also included in the
docket are the list of companies that certified to having ceased
manufacturing by March 20, 2019 and have no plans to restart
manufacturing in the next five years (Ref. 9) as well as those that
certified to not manufacturing the chemical substance in the five-year
period preceding publication of the preliminary lists (Ref. 11). The
``Certification of Cessation'' list also includes those manufacturers
who ceased manufacturing by March 20, 2019 except for manufacture of a
byproduct, or impurity or in an article. The final list of
manufacturers differs from the preliminary lists (see docket number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677) for several reasons. For example, many CDR/TRI
manufacturers that were identified on the preliminary list had either
ceased manufacturing prior to the cutoff dates were not manufacturers
(or importers) of the chemical substances. Such entities were not
included on the final lists. Other entities from the preliminary lists,
in accordance with the planned regulatory change, that only
manufactured (or imported) chemicals as a byproduct, impurity, or in an
article and certified as such, were not included in the final list.
Other entities that were not included on a preliminary list, such as
importers of chemical substances for laboratory or R&D use that
imported volumes below the CDR 25,000 lb threshold, self-identified as
a manufacturer (including importer) during the reporting period and
were therefore included on a final list. There are no fees associated
with the risk evaluation for tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate (115-96-8).
    Fee obligations are set forth in 40 CFR 700.45 and include a total
fee of $1,350,000 for EPA-initiated risk evaluations, with a reduced
fee amount for small business concerns (Ref. 1). The total fee is
shared amongst all identified manufacturers (including importers). The
Fees Rule provides more detailed information on how EPA established the
fee for EPA-initiated risk evaluations (Ref. 1).
    In recognition of the unprecedented and unforeseen challenges to
the economy as a result of public health emergency, the Agency is
exploring options for payment flexibilities, including payment plans
and extended due dates for fees. Manufacturers may also form a
consortium to pay fees in accordance with 40 CFR 700.45(f)(3). The
consortium must notify EPA that a consortium has formed within 60 days
of the publication of the final scope of a risk evaluation. Once
established, the consortium would determine how the fee would be split
among the members, and ultimately paid to EPA. For additional
information on the possible

division of costs amongst consortia and individual manufacturers,
please see the Fees Rule Unit III.J, Multiple Parties Subject to Fee
Obligation (Ref. 1).

C. How can I access the final list?

    The final list of manufacturers that will be subject to the Fees
Rule for EPA-initiated risk evaluations under section 6 of TSCA can be
found at docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677 at http://www.regulations.gov and on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/TSCA-fees.

III. Public Comments on Preliminary Lists and EPA Responses

    EPA received public comments from 78 entities on the preliminary
lists. As a general matter, many of the comments raised questions
asking further clarification of what constitutes a byproduct or
article; requesting a de minimis exemption; etc. The Agency responded
to the questions by communicating directly with individual
stakeholders, hosting conference calls with stakeholders, participating
in webinars for stakeholders, improving web content, and adding
Frequently Asked Questions to the EPA web page at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-fees/frequent-questions-about-tsca-fees-epa-initiated-risk-evaluations.

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    1. EPA. Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances
Control Act. Federal Register. (83 FR 52694, October 17, 2018) (FRL-
9984-41).
    2. EPA. High-Priority Substance Designations Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA); Notice of Availability. Federal
Register. (84 FR 71924, December 30, 2019) (FRL-10003-15).
    3. EPA. Initiation of Prioritization Under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA); Notice. Federal Register. (84 FR 10491, March
21, 2019) (FRL-9991-06).
    4. EPA. Proposed High-Priority Substance Designations Under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Notice of Availability and
Request for Comment. Federal Register. (84 FR 44300, August 23,
2019) (FRL-9998-29).
    5. EPA. Preliminary Lists Identifying Manufacturers Subject to
Fee Obligations for EPA-Initiated Risk Evaluations Under Section 6
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Notice of Availability
and Request for Comment. Federal Register. (85 FR 4661, January 27,
2020) (FRL-10003-14).
    6. EPA. Preliminary Lists Identifying Manufacturers Subject to
Fee Obligations for EPA-Initiated Risk Evaluations Under Section 6
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Notice of Availability
and Request for Comment; Extension of Comment Period. Federal
Register. (85 FR 14677, March 13, 2020) (FRL-10006-03).
    7. EPA. Preliminary Lists Identifying Manufacturers Subject to
Fee Obligations for EPA-Initiated Risk Evaluations Under Section 6
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Notice of Availability
and Request for Comment; Extension of Comment Period. Federal
Register. (85 FR 32036, May 28, 2020) (FRL-10010-37).
    8. EPA. List of Final Manufacturers for all 20 High Priority
Substances. August 2020
    9. EPA. List of Manufacturers Who Certified as Ceasing
Manufacture. August 2020.
    10. EPA. ``No Action Assurance Letter'' of March 24, 2020.
    11. EPA. List of Manufactures Who Self-Identified as ``No
Manufacture''. August 2020.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2625.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-19668 Filed 9-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 114 (Friday, June 13, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33879]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1147]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Warren County,
Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations
for Warren County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions).

DATES: This withdrawal is effective on June 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1147, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 5, 2010, FEMA published a
proposed rulemaking at 75 FR 61384-61385, proposing flood elevation
determinations along one or more flooding sources in Warren County,
Pennsylvania. Because FEMA has or will be issuing a Revised Preliminary
Flood Insurance Rate Map, and if necessary a Flood Insurance Study
report, featuring updated flood hazard information, the proposed
rulemaking is being withdrawn. A Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard
Determinations will be published in the Federal Register and in the
affected community's local newspaper.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: May 9, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-13925 Filed 6-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 29, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34177-34187]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13693]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R07-OAR-2021-0391; FRL-10025-26-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri Redesignation Request and Associated
Maintenance Plan for the Jefferson County 2010 SO2 1-Hour NAAQS
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 27, 2017, the State of Missouri submitted a
request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate
the Jefferson County, Missouri, 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
nonattainment area to attainment and to approve a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the area. The
State provided supplemental information on: May 15, 2018; February 7,
2019; February 25, 2019; and April 9, 2021. In response to these
submittals, the EPA is proposing to take the following actions: Approve
the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 primary standard in the area; and approve the State's
request to redesignate the Jefferson County SO2
nonattainment area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
primary standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2021-0391 to https://www.regulations.gov. 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 https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Keas, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What is the background for the EPA's proposed actions?
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?
V. What is the EPA's analysis of the request?
VI. What are the actions the EPA is proposing to take?
VII. Environmental Justice Concerns
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2021-
0391, at https://www.regulations.gov. 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on the December 2017 SIP submittal from
July 31, 2017 to September 7, 2017 and held a public hearing on August
31, 2017. The State received and addressed nineteen combined comments
from a total of five sources. The State revised the maintenance plan
based on public comment prior to submitting to the EPA.
    On April 9, 2021, Missouri submitted a supplement to the SIP
revision to the EPA consisting of an addendum to the Consent Agreement
between Ameren and Missouri. The Consent Agreement addendum
incorporates monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements
needed to make the emissions limits contained in the Consent Agreement
practically enforceable. Missouri held a public hearing for this SIP
supplement on January 28, 2021 and made the supplement available for
public review and comment from December 28, 2020 through February 4,
2021. Missouri received supportive comments from Ameren.
    In addition, as explained above (and in more detail in the
technical support document which is included in the docket for this
action), the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What is the background for the EPA's proposed actions?

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA revised the primary SO2 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
SO2 NAAQS is met at a monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb (based on the rounding
convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix T).\2\ Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness
requirement. A year meets data completeness requirements when all four
quarters are complete, and a quarter is complete when at least 75
percent of the sampling days for each quarter have complete data. A
sampling day has complete data if 75 percent of the hourly
concentration values, including State-flagged data affected by
exceptional events which have been approved for exclusion by the
Administrator, are reported.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 75 FR 35520.
    \2\ See 40 CFR 50.17.
    \3\ 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the
EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that does not meet (or that
contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)
the NAAQS.\4\ On August 5, 2013, the EPA designated a portion of
Jefferson County, Missouri, as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS, effective October 4, 2013.\5\ The
designation was based on 2008-2010 monitoring data in Herculaneum,
Missouri, which monitored violations of the standard (see section III
of this document for additional monitoring information). This action
established an attainment date five years after the effective date for
the areas designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
(i.e., by October 4, 2018). The State was also required to submit a SIP
for the Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment area to the EPA
that meets the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172(c) and 191-192
within 18 months following the October 4, 2013, effective date of
designation (i.e., by April 4, 2015). The State of Missouri submitted
the ``Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Jefferson County Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area'' on June 5, 2015, and subsequently withdrew the
plan on March 30, 2018, following several intervening steps discussed
later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(i).
    \5\ 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013), codified at 40 CFR 81.326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 2, 2016, the State submitted a request asking the EPA
to determine that the Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment
area attained the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS per the
EPA's Clean Data Policy. The clean data policy represents the EPA's
interpretation that certain planning-related requirements of part D of
the Act, such as the attainment demonstration, reasonably available
control measures (RACM), and reasonable further progress (RFP), are
suspended for areas that are in fact attaining the NAAQS. A
determination of attainment, or clean data determination, does not
constitute a formal redesignation to attainment. If the EPA
subsequently determines that an area is no longer attaining the
standard, those requirements that were suspended by the clean data
determination are once again due.
    On June 23, 2017, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
to approve the State's request for a clean data determination. The
proposal was based on 2014-2016 monitoring data--the Mott Street
monitor design value (dv) was 23 parts per billion (ppb)--and modeling
data (a mix of 2013-2015 actual and allowable emissions).6 7
After considering public comments received, the EPA published a Notice
of Final Rulemaking (NFRM) approving the State's request for a clean
data determination in the Federal Register on September 13, 2017.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 82 FR 28605.
    \7\ The State or Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) was moved
from Main Street to Mott Street in 2011 with EPA approval. The Mott
Street SLAMS location was selected to characterize source specific
(both SO2 and lead) emissions from the Doe Run
Herculaneum primary lead smelter.
    \8\ See 82 FR 42945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 27, 2017, the State submitted a request for
redesignation of the Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment area
to attainment and a SIP revision containing a 10-year maintenance plan
for the area. On May 15, 2018, the State submitted a clarifying letter
that Appendix A (containing the emissions inventory for the area) and
Appendix B (containing a Consent Agreement for certain sources in the
area) of the SIP submittal should be considered part of the SIP
revision request. On February 7, 2019, and February 25, 2019, the State
submitted supplemental modeling information to the EPA. On April 9,
2021, the State submitted an addendum to the Consent Agreement which
contains the emissions limits and monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements needed to determine compliance with the
emissions limits for the covered sources. This proposal document
discusses the EPA's review of the redesignation request, the
maintenance plan (including Consent Agreement and addendum), and the
supplemental information and provides support for the EPA's proposed
approval of the request to redesignate the area to attainment and for
proposed approval of the 10-year maintenance plan. Additional analysis
of the redesignation request, 10-year maintenance plan, Consent
Agreement and addendum, and supplemental modeling information is

provided in a Technical Support Document (TSD) included in the docket
to this proposed rulemaking.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The TSD discusses the EPA's review of the CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria: (i) A determination of
attainment; (iii) a determination that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and (iv) a fully approved maintenance plan as well CAA section 175A
maintenance plan criteria: (1) Attainment inventory; (2) maintenance
demonstration; and (3) continued monitoring. The EPA's review of the
remaining redesignation and maintenance plan criteria are
sufficiently addressed in the preamble language to the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation of a nonattainment area provided that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan
for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the
State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

V. What is the EPA's analysis of the request?

    The EPA's evaluation of Missouri's redesignation request and
maintenance plan is based on consideration of the five redesignation
criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) and relevant guidance.
On April 16, 1992, the EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the
General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992.10 11 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
SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions'' (2014
SO2 Guidance).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 57 FR 13498.
    \11\ See 57 FR 18070.
    \12\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criterion (1)--The Jefferson County SO2 Nonattainment Area Has Attained
the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires the EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). The EPA determined that the area
attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in its September 2017
NFRM approving the State's request for a clean data determination
meeting the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). That
determination was primarily based on a modeling analysis of recent
actual emissions for sources in and around the nonattainment area. As
described further in the TSD for this action, the Supplemental modeling
submitted by Missouri in February 2019 to support the redesignation
request and maintenance plan is based on a modeling demonstration of
permanent and enforceable emissions at sources in the nonattainment
area that similarly demonstrates the area is attaining the standard.
Therefore, the EPA's determination that the area had achieved clean
data is consistent with the proposed action to redesignate the area.
    Following the EPA's determination that the area had achieved clean
data, the EPA reviewed quality assured monitoring data recorded in the
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) from the Mott Street monitoring station.
The 3-year, 2018-2020 design value for the Mott Street monitor is 14
ppb and continues to meet the 2010 1-hour SO2 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 SO2 Guidance, at 56.

                Table 1--2015-2020 Mott Street Monitor Data (parts per billion (ppb)); 99th Percentile (99%) and 3-Year Design Value (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     2020    2015-2017    2016-2018    2017-2019    2018-2020
                     Site                        99th %   99th %   99th %   99th %   99th %   99th %       dv           dv           dv           dv
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mott Street...................................      38       13       18       12       12       17           23           14           14           14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Criterion (2)--Missouri Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k);
and Criterion (5)--Missouri Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of Title I of the CAA

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment under a NAAQS,
the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the State has met all
applicable requirements for that NAAQS under section 110 and part D of
title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the State has
a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for that NAAQS for the area
(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). The EPA proposes to find that Missouri
has met all applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation
for the Jefferson County SO2 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 SO2 NAAQS for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In proposing to make these
determinations, the EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable
to the Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment area and, if
applicable, that they are fully approved under section 110(k).

a. The Jefferson County SO2 Nonattainment Area Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
    General SIP requirements. General SIP elements and requirements are
delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal
of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable public
notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of
appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for
air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation in planning and emissions control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, the EPA
has required certain States to establish programs to address the
interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a State are not linked with a nonattainment area's
designation and classification in that State. The EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a nonattainment area's designation and
classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where
applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless of the designation
of any one area in the State. Thus, the EPA does not believe that the
CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, the EPA believes other section 110 elements that are
neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with
an area's attainment status are applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements
after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements
which are linked with an area's designation and classification are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request.
This approach is consistent with the EPA's existing policy on
applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated
fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 2008);
Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in
the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October
19, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title I, part D, applicable SIP requirements. Section 172(c) of the
CAA sets forth the basic requirements of attainment plans for
nonattainment areas that are required to submit them pursuant to
section 172(b). Subpart 5 of part D, which includes section 191 and 192
of the CAA, establishes requirements for SO2, nitrogen
dioxide and lead nonattainment areas. A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in sections 172(c) can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 57 FR 13498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172 and subpart 5 requirements. Section 172(c)(1) requires
the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation
of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA interprets this requirement to impose
a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control
measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably
available for implementation in each area as components of the area's
attainment demonstration. Under section 172, States with nonattainment
areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a
variety of other requirements.
    The EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning
requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the
NAAQS, those requirements are not ``applicable'' for purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) and therefore need not be approved
into the SIP before the EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992
General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, the EPA set forth its
interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating
redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard.\16\ The
EPA noted that the requirements for RFP and other measures designed to
provide for attainment do not apply in evaluating redesignation
requests because those nonattainment planning requirements ``have no
meaning'' for an area that has already attained the standard.\17\ This
interpretation was also set forth in the Calcagni Memo. The EPA's
understanding of section 172 also forms the basis of its Clean Data
Policy, which was articulated with regard to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the EPA's 2014 SO2 Guidance, and
suspends a State's obligation to submit most of the attainment planning
requirements that would otherwise apply, including an attainment
demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and
contingency measures under section 172(c)(9). Courts have upheld the
EPA's interpretation of section 172(c)(1) for ``reasonably available''
control measures and control technology as meaning only those controls
that advance attainment, which precludes the need to require additional
measures where an area is already attaining.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 57 FR 13498, 13564.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra
Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA,
314 F.3d 735, 744 (5th Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004). But see Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir.
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, because the Jefferson County SO2
nonattainment area is currently attaining the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment
demonstration and RACM are not part of the ``applicable implementation
plan'' required to have been approved prior to redesignation per CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). The other section 172 requirements
that are designed to help an area achieve attainment--the section
172(c)(2) requirement that nonattainment plans contain provisions
promoting reasonable further progress, the requirement to submit the
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, and the section 172(c)(6)
requirement for the SIP to contain control measures necessary to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS--are also not required to be
approved as part of the ``applicable implementation plan'' for purposes
of satisfying CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v).
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. The
requirement for an emissions inventory can be satisfied by meeting the
inventory requirements of the maintenance plan.\19\ However, when the
State withdrew its attainment plan for the area in March 2018, it did
not withdraw the baseline emissions inventory submitted with that plan.
On November 23, 2018, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register proposing to approve that the State met the
section 172(c)(3)

requirement to submit an emissions inventory for the Jefferson County
SO2 nonattainment area.\20\ On February 13, 2019, the EPA
published a final rulemaking in the Federal Register approving the
State's emissions inventory for the Jefferson County SO2
nonattainment area.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Calcagni Memo at 6.
    \20\ See 83 FR 59348.
    \21\ See 84 FR 3703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for
the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. The State has an approved
nonattainment NSR program.\22\ Regardless, the State has demonstrated
that the Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment area will be
able to maintain the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect. Missouri's PSD
program will be in effect in the Jefferson County SO2
nonattainment area upon redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 80 FR 31844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, the EPA believes the
Missouri SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
    Section 176 conformity requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires States to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that
are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the United States
Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with federal conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that the EPA promulgated
pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
    Missouri has an approved general conformity SIP.\23\ Moreover, the
EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d)
because, like other requirements listed above, State conformity rules
are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules
apply where State rules have not been approved.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 78 FR 57267.
    \24\ See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding
this interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Tampa, Florida).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the 2014 SO2 Guidance, transportation
conformity is required under CAA section 176(c) to ensure that
federally supported highway and transit project activities are
consistent with (``conform to'') the purpose of the SIP. Transportation
conformity applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and
those areas redesignated to attainment (``maintenance areas'' with
plans developed under CAA section 175A) for transportation-related
criteria pollutants. Due to the relatively small, and decreasing,
amounts of sulfur in gasoline and on-road diesel fuel, the EPA's
conformity rules provide that they do not apply to SO2
unless either the EPA Regional Administrator or the director of the
State air agency has found that transportation-related emissions of
SO2 as a precursor are a significant contributor to a
PM2.5 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
SO2 for the Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1), (2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the EPA proposes to find that Missouri has
satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation of
the Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment area under section
110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
b. The Jefferson 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
Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment area under section 110(k)
of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation. As indicated above, the EPA believes that the section
110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan
submissions nor linked to an area's attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The EPA has
approved all part D requirements applicable under the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, as identified above, for purposes of this
redesignation.

Criterion (3)--The Air Quality Improvement in the Jefferson County SO2
Nonattainment Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in
Emissions

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires the EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the
area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable federal air
pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable
reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). The EPA proposes to find
that Missouri has demonstrated that the observed air quality
improvement in the Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment area
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
Specifically, the EPA considers the shutdown of the Doe Run Herculaneum
primary lead smelter (lead smelter), identified as the key contributor
to the SO2 NAAQS violations at the Mott Street monitor, to
be both permanent and enforceable.\26\ As stated on page 10 of the
Calcagni Memo, ``Emission reductions from source shutdowns can be
considered permanent and enforceable to the extent that those shutdowns
have been reflected in the SIP and all applicable permits have been
modified accordingly.'' The lead smelter was limited to the terms of a
consent decree entered by Doe Run, Missouri, and the EPA in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri (2011 Consent
Decree).\27\ On December 31, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the 2011
Consent Decree, the lead smelter permanently ceased operations of the
sintering plant. The 2011 Consent Decree also required the lead smelter
to permanently cease smelting operations and retire the blast furnaces
by April 30, 2014; the lead smelter ceased operation of the blast
furnaces on December 31, 2013, concurrently with the cessation of
operation of the sintering plant. In addition, the Consent Decree
required Doe Run to surrender air permits for the emission units
required to be permanently shut down by the Consent Decree. Given the
well-established correlation of much lower SO2 emissions at
the Mott Street monitor during periods when the lead smelter has been
shut down, the EPA

anticipates that the SO2 NAAQS will continue to be attained.
See Table 1 for recent monitoring data trends at this monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See EPA's final Technical Support Document (TSD) for the
Jefferson County SO2 Nonattainment Area, in the docket
for EPA's initial round of 2010 SO2 designations at EPA-
HQ-OAR-2012-0233-0318.
    \27\ Case No. 4:10-cv-01895-JCH on December 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the State entered into a Consent Agreement with
Ameren Missouri (Ameren), included as Appendix B to the maintenance
plan submission, limiting the SO2 emissions from three
Ameren facilities. One facility, Ameren-Rush Island Energy Center (Rush
Island), is located within the nonattainment area boundary. The other
two facilities, Ameren Meramec Energy Center (Meramec) and Ameren
Labadie Energy Center (Labadie) are located outside of the
nonattainment area boundary. The Consent Agreement emission limits are
provided in Table 2.

                         Table 2--Ameren/Missouri Consent Agreement SO2 Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Emission limit
                    Source                         per source                     Averaging time
                                               (pounds per hour)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labadie......................................             40,837  24-hr block average.
Meramec......................................              7,371  24-hr block average.
Rush Island..................................             13,600  24-hr block average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because it is located inside of the Jefferson County SO2
nonattainment area, the State modeled Rush Island at a constant
emission rate of 14,600 lbs SO2/hr for every hour of the
year in all five years (2013-2017) of the modeling analysis. This
modeled emission rate corresponds to the facility's enforceable 24-hour
block average limit for hourly SO2 emissions of 13,600 lbs
SO2/hr when accounting for variability. The State modeled
Meramec and Labadie as nearby sources in accordance with the code of
federal regulations (CFR) 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, Guideline on Air
Quality Models. That is, the State modeled Meramec and Labadie's
permitted/allowable emission rate from the Consent Agreement with
actual temporally varying heat input levels. Please see the TSD for
details of the modeling inputs and additional discussion of the air
quality modeling. The modeling results demonstrate attainment and
project continued maintenance of the NAAQS, and the TSD also contains
discussion of the EPA's review of the modeling.
    Therefore, the EPA is proposing to find that the air quality
improvement in the Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment area
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.

Criterion (4)--The Jefferson County SO2 Nonattainment Area Has a Fully
Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA

    To redesignate a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires
the EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance
plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the
Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment area to attainment for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the State submitted a SIP
revision to provide for the maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 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 SO2 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
SO2 NAAQS.\28\ The EPA is proposing to approve that Missouri
has met this requirement through modeling of permanent and enforceable
emissions limits that will result in continued attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. Missouri also provided emissions inventories
as part of the maintenance plan. Specifically, Missouri selected 2014
as the attainment emissions inventory year for developing an emissions
inventory for SO2 in the nonattainment area through 2030.
Please see the TSD included in the docket for this action for details
of the base year, attainment year and future year emissions inventories
and the EPA's review of these inventories. The TSD also details the
EPA's review of the modeling demonstration provided by Missouri which
forms the basis for the EPA's approval of this maintenance plan
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 2014 SO2 Guidance, at 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Maintenance Demonstration
    The Calcagni memo describes two ways for a State to demonstrate
maintenance of the NAAQS for a period of at least 10 years following
the redesignation of the area: (1) The State can show that future
emissions of a pollutant will not exceed the level of the attainment
inventory, or (2) the State can model to show that the future mix of
sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of the standard.
The memo goes on to say that areas that are required to model to
demonstrate attainment of the standard should complete the same level
of modeling to demonstrate that the permanent and enforceable emissions
are enough to maintain the standard. The State performed several
modeling iterations to demonstrate that the standard will be
maintained. In its February 7, 2019, and February 25, 2019,
supplemental

modeling, Missouri has demonstrated maintenance by modeling all sources
inside of the nonattainment area at their permanent, enforceable,
allowable emission rates, nearby sources at their permanent,
enforceable, allowable emission rates (with actual operating conditions
for 2013-2017), and other sources addressed through the use of a
background concentration. The EPA proposes that the supplemental
modeling provided by Missouri demonstrates the standard will be
attained and maintained for at least 10 years following redesignation
of the area, consistent with the second method outlined in the Calcagni
memo by which a State may demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS. Please
see the TSD for details of the modeling inputs, results and the EPA's
review of them. The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's maintenance
plan including the supplemental modeling and a background concentration
revised by the EPA as meeting the maintenance demonstration
requirement.
d. Monitoring Network
    Missouri has committed to continue operating the ``appropriate
SO2 network in the Jefferson County nonattainment area'' in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, and approved annual
monitoring network plans, to verify the attainment status of the area.
The State committed to quality assure the data in accordance with 40
CFR part 58 and submit the data to the EPA's air quality system (AQS).
The maintenance plan, consistent with the State's 2019 annual ambient
monitoring network plan, indicate that the Mott Street monitor is the
only SLAMS or SLAMS like monitor operational in the nonattainment
area.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Missouri's 2019 Ambient Monitoring Network Plan
contained in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are also three industrial source monitors located around Rush
Island.\30\ These monitors are required per the Consent Agreement
between Ameren and the State.\31\ The Consent Agreement required the
monitors to start operation by December 2015 and operate 12 consecutive
quarters (3 years). The industrial source monitors have also been
identified in the State's annual ambient monitoring network plans since
2015.\32\ The Consent Agreement also requires certain responses by
Ameren if elevated monitoring values are recorded at any of the
industrial source monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The industrial monitors are not classified as SLAMS nor as
Data Requirements Rule monitors.
    \31\ The Consent Agreement is included as Appendix B of the
maintenance plan.
    \32\ The EPA approved the State's 2019 Ambient Monitoring
Network Plan via letter dated January 8, 2021. Missouri's 2019 Plan
and the EPA's approval letter are included in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maintenance plan and Consent Agreement requires Ameren to
operate the industrial source monitors for a minimum of 12 consecutive
quarters. The maintenance plan and Consent Agreement do not establish
that the monitors must be operated as SLAMS-like monitors which would
make them subject to the discontinuation requirements of 40 CFR part
58.\33\ However, because the EPA is proposing to approve the
requirement to operate the industrial source monitors, and that the
contingency measures may be triggered by data recorded by these
industrial source monitors, as contained in the Consent Agreement, into
the SIP, the monitors must operate until the EPA approves a revision to
the SIP to remove the monitoring requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ However, the EPA notes that the industrial source monitors
are operated in accordance with an approved industrial source
monitoring quality assurance project plan (QAPP) and quality
management plan (QMP). The relevant QAPP and QMP documents are
included in the docket for this action. The QMP outlines the quality
assurance audits to be conducted by Missouri staff to ensure the
industrial monitoring data is collected in a manner equivalent to
SLAMS and may be used to determine NAAQS compliance. See Missouri's
2016 Ambient Monitoring Network Plan contained in the docket for
this action for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the industrial source monitors were not identified by the
State as necessary to meet the requirements of the Data Requirements
Rule (DRR) they are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
51.1203(c).\34\ The 2018 annual monitoring network plan commits the
State to ``continuing to work with Ameren to collect quality assured
SO2 ambient air quality data and meteorological data near
the Rush Island power station to provide quantifiable and useful
information to supplement the ongoing 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
implementation process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The EPA promulgated the DRR August 21, 2015. The DRR
requires air agencies to characterize air quality, either by
monitoring or modeling, around sources that emit 2,000 tons per year
(tpy) or more of SO2. The requirement for air quality
characterization near a source may be avoided by adopting
enforceable emission limits that ensure that the source will not
emit more than 2,000 tpy of SO2. On January 15, 2016, the
State submitted a final list identifying the sources in the State
around which SO2 air quality will be characterized. Rush
Island was not included in the list because it is within the
Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment area. Starting in
2016, Missouri's annual monitoring network plans state that
monitoring around Rush Island is being conducted by agreement
between the State and Ameren.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because there is no regulatory obligation, or commitment from
Ameren or the State to operate the industrial source monitors as SLAMS-
like or for the duration of the maintenance period, the EPA is
proposing to approve that the State is meeting its obligation to
continue monitoring in the area, and verify ongoing attainment and
maintenance, via operation of the Mott Street SLAMS monitor and that
Missouri's maintenance plan meets the ``Monitoring Network''
requirement.\35\ However, as previously noted, because the EPA is
proposing to approve the Consent Agreement into the SIP, continued
operation of the industrial source monitors will be required until the
EPA approves a revision to the SIP to remove the monitoring
requirements.\36\ The available recent monitoring data from these
industrial monitors is included in the TSD associated with this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Any change in the operational status or location of the
Mott Street monitor must be approved by the Regional Administrator
in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
    \36\ The EPA would also need to approve the monitor changes as
part of the State's annual monitoring network plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Each air agency should ensure that it has the legal authority to
implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and maintain the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. The air agency's submittal should indicate
how it will track the progress of the maintenance plan for the area
either through air quality monitoring or modeling.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 2014 SO2 Guidance at 67-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri has the legal authority to enforce and implement the
maintenance plan for the Jefferson County 2010 SO2
nonattainment area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement,
and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures
determined to be necessary to correct future SO2 attainment
problems.\38\ As noted, the State will track the progress of the
maintenance plan by continuing to operate the Mott Street monitor.
Additionally, the State committed to provide future inventory updates
to track emissions during the 10-year maintenance period. State
Regulation 10 CSR 10-6.110, Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees, and
Process Information, (which is SIP approved) requires that all
installations with a construction or operating permit report its annual
emissions to the State. The methods for calculating and reporting
emissions are detailed in each installation's applicable permit. The
data collected on emissions inventory questionnaires from permitted
sources form the basis of the point source emissions inventory that is

compiled annually.\39\ In addition, in compliance with the EPA's Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements [80 FR 8787], Missouri develops a
comprehensive emissions inventory of point, area, and mobile sources
every 3 years. This triennial inventory compiled by the State is
contained in the EPA's national emissions inventory (NEI) which is made
publicly available every 3 years. For these reasons, the EPA is
proposing to find that Missouri's maintenance plan meets the
``Verification of Continued Attainment'' requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The EPA last determined that Missouri's SIP was sufficient
to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA on
March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12496).
    \39\ This information is available to the EPA or members of the
public upon request from the State of Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan
    Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
such contingency measures as the EPA deems necessary to assure that the
State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for action by the State. A State
should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when
the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan
must also include a requirement that a State will implement all
measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained
in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance
with section 175A(d).
    The contingency plan includes a triggering mechanism to determine
when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and
implementing appropriate control measures. The triggering mechanisms
contained in the maintenance plan and Consent Agreement are based on
monitoring data from the Mott Street monitor and the industrial source
monitors around the Ameren Rush Island facility. The EPA finds it
appropriate to rely on monitoring data to trigger the contingency plan
because the Mott Street monitor is being relied upon to demonstrate
continued maintenance in the area as discussed in the Monitoring
Network section of this document. Additionally, the industrial source
monitors were sited consistent with relevant EPA guidance to capture
maximum impacts from the Rush Island plant.\40\ Because the Rush Island
plant is the largest remaining source in the maintenance area, the EPA
agrees that monitoring around the Rush Island plant would be the best
indicator of any potential future air quality issues in the maintenance
area and thereby represents a reasonable triggering mechanism for the
State's contingency plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Missouri's 2015 and 2016 annual monitoring network
plans contained in the docket for this action for more information
about the siting of the monitors around Rush Island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State listed two types of triggers of its contingency plan. The
first, a ``warning level response,'' will be triggered by a 99th
percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average SO2
concentrations greater than 79 ppb in a single calendar year in the
Jefferson County maintenance area. The second, an ``action level
response,'' will be triggered if a violation of the NAAQS is recorded
in the Jefferson County maintenance area, specifically if the 3-year
average of annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour concentrations
is 76 ppb or higher.
    If the warning level response is triggered, a study must be
completed to determine whether the monitored SO2 value
indicates a trend toward higher concentrations in the Jefferson County
maintenance area. The study will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is
likely to continue. The study shall be completed as expeditiously as
possible, but no later than 24 months after the State has determined
that a warning level response has been triggered. It should be noted
that the EPA does not require a State to implement contingency measures
when occasional exceedances are recorded.
    If the action level response is triggered and is not found to be
due to an exceptional event as defined at 40 CFR part 50.1(j), measures
to address the violation shall be implemented as expeditiously as
possible, but no later than 24 months after quality assured ambient
data that has been entered into the AQS database indicating that this
trigger has occurred. If a new measure or control is already
promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the federal or State
level, and that measure or control is determined to be enough to
address the upward trend in ambient SO2 concentrations
within the maintenance area, additional local measures may be
unnecessary. Furthermore, Missouri will submit to the EPA an analysis
demonstrating the proposed action level response measures are adequate
to return the area to attainment. Contingency measures considered will
be based on an analysis of the cause of the elevated ambient
SO2 concentrations from the entity(ies) likely to be
contributing to the elevated concentrations. Measures may include
improvements to existing control devices, addition of secondary control
devices or improvements in housekeeping and maintenance, among other
measures. It is not possible to develop a comprehensive list of
contingency measures that can address all possible violations until the
cause of the elevated concentrations is known. Any contingency measures
implemented will require a compliance plan and expeditious compliance
timeline from the entity(ies) involved. The EPA is proposing to find
that Missouri's maintenance plan meets the ``Contingency Measures''
requirement.
    In addition to the contingency plan contained in the maintenance
plan, the Consent Agreement contains specific contingency plan triggers
and requirements for Ameren. Specifically, the Consent Agreement
requires that Ameren perform an air quality analysis if any elevated
monitoring values are recorded (one occurrence of a measured
SO2 concentration that exceeds 75 ppb for one hour) at any
of the three industrial source monitors. Ameren must submit this air
quality analysis including the monitored information and any relevant
operational information to Missouri within a specified time frame.
    If through discussion of the air quality analysis, it is
established that the elevated monitoring values were attributable to
Ameren Rush Island, Ameren would provide the State with proposed
potential mitigation measures, SO2 emissions limitations,
and a compliance schedule.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that the maintenance plan adequately
addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: The
attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan.
Therefore, the EPA proposes to find that the maintenance plan SIP
revision submitted by Missouri for the Jefferson County 2010
SO2 nonattainment area meets the requirements of section
175A of the CAA and proposes to approve the plan.

VI. What are the actions the EPA is proposing to take?

    The EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the
Jefferson County 2010 SO2 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 SO2 NAAQS and includes a process to develop
contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 2010

1-hour SO2 NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential
violations.
    Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Jefferson
County 2010 SO2 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 SO2 NAAQS.
On this basis, the EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's redesignation
request for the area. Final approval of Missouri's redesignation
request would change the legal designation of the portion of Jefferson
County designated nonattainment at 40 CFR part 81 to attainment for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

VII. Environmental Justice Concerns

    When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires
the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment,
attainment, or unclassifiable. Area designations address environmental
justice concerns by ensuring that the public is properly informed about
the air quality in an area. If an area is designated in nonattainment
of the NAAQS, the CAA provides for the EPA to redesignate the area to
attainment upon a demonstration by the state authority that air quality
is attaining the NAAQS and will continue to maintain the NAAQS in order
to ensure that all those residing, working, attending school, or
otherwise present in those areas are protected, regardless of minority
and economic status.

VIII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the Missouri State Implementation Plan described in the
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, if they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this action:
     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 the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     This action does not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations,
low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The analysis for
this determination is contained in Section VII of this action,
``Environmental Justice Concerns.''
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Maintenance plan, Redesignation, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Designations,
Redesignation, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 22, 2021.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320:
0
a. The table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding the entry ``(34)''
in numerical order.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry ``(79)''
in numerical order.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                            EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          Name of source             Order/permit No.   effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(34) Ameren Missouri.............  Consent Agreement        12/14/2020  [Date of             ...................
                                    and Addendum No.                     publication of the
                                    APCP-2015-034.                       final rule in the
                                                                         Federal Register],
                                                                         [Federal Register
                                                                         citation of the
                                                                         final rule].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of nonregulatory SIP     Applicable  geographic or   State submittal    EPA approval
           revision                 nonattainment area            date              date           Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(79) Jefferson County 1-hour    Jefferson County            12/27/17; 5/15/   [Date of          This action
 SO2 NAAQS Maintenance Plan                                  18; 2/7/19; 2/    publication of    approves the
 and Supplemental Modeling                                   25/19; and 4/9/   the final rule    Maintenance
 Analyses.                                                   21                in the Federal    Plan and the
                                                                               Register],        Supplemental
                                                                               [Federal          Modeling
                                                                               Register          Analyses for
                                                                               citation of the   the Jefferson
                                                                               final rule]       County area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  52.1343, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1343  Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.

* * * * *
    (c) Redesignation to attainment. EPA has determined, as of [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], that the
Jefferson County 2010 SO2 nonattainment area is redesignated
to attainment of the 2010 SO2 1-hour National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) in accordance with the requirements of Clean
Air Act (CAA) section 107(d)(3) and has approved its maintenance plan
and supplemental modeling demonstration analyses as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 175A.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
5. In Sec.  81.326, revise the entry ``Jefferson County, MO'' in the
table entitled ``Missouri--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS [Primary]'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  81.326  Missouri.

* * * * *

                   Missouri--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
                                [Primary]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Designation
       Designated area 1        ----------------------------------------
                                       Date 2               Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Jefferson County, MO             [Date 30 days      Attainment.
                                  after date of
                                  publication of
                                  the final rule
                                  in the Federal
                                  Register]
    Jefferson County (part):...
        That portion within
         Jefferson County
         described by
         connecting the
         following four sets of
         UTM coordinates moving
         in a clockwise manner:
            (Herculaneum USGS
             Quadrangle)
             718360.283
             4250477.056,
             729301.869
             4250718.415,
             729704.134
             4236840.30,
             718762.547
             4236558.715.
            (Festus USGS
             Quadrangle)
             718762.547
             4236558.715,
             729704.134
             4236840.30,
             730066.171
             4223042.637,
             719124.585
             4222680.6.
            (Selma USGS
             Quadrangle)
             729704.134
             4236840.30,
             730428.209
             4236840.3,
             741047.984
             4223283.996,
             730066.171
             4223042.637.
            (Valmeyer USGS
             Quadrangle)
             729301.869
             4250718.415,
             731474.096
             4250798.868,
             730428.209
             4236840.3,
             729704.134
             4236840.30.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise
  specified. EPA is not determining the boundaries of any area of Indian
  country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in
  the larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in
  the designation area is not a determination that the state has
  regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is April 9, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-13693 Filed 6-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P