[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20896-20908]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07143]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0155; FRL-10007-62-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri and Kansas; Determination of
Attainment for the Jackson County, Missouri 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area and Redesignation of the Wyandotte County, Kansas
Unclassifiable Area to Attainment/Unclassifiable

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Jackson County, Missouri 1-hour (1-hr) Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
Nonattainment Area has attained the NAAQS and to redesignate the
Wyandotte County, Kansas 1-hr SO2 NAAQS Unclassifiable Area
as Attainment/Unclassifiable. Both proposed decisions are based on air
quality monitoring and modeling data.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2020-0155 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: Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number (913) 551-
7016; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What action is the EPA proposing?
III. What is the background of this action?
    A. Designations
    B. Clean Data Policy
    C. How does a nonattainment area achieve ``Clean Data'' for the
2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS?
    D. What are the criteria to be redesignated from unclassifiable
to attainment/unclassifiable?
    E. What information did Missouri provide to the EPA to
demonstrate that the jackson county area has attained the NAAQS?
    F. What information did Kansas provide to the EPA to demonstrate
that the Wyandotte County area should be redesignated from
unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable?
    G. What is the EPA's rationale for proposing this action?
    i. Jackson County, Missouri
    ii. Wyandotte County, Kansas
IV. What is the EPA's analysis of the air quality monitoring and
modeling data?
    A. Monitoring Data
    B. Jackson County Clean Data Modeling
    i. Meteorological Data
    ii. Background Concentration
    iii. Source Characteristics
    iv. Emissions Data
    v. Results
    C. Wyandotte County Redesignation Modeling
    i. Meteorological Data
    ii. Background Concentration
    iii. Source Characteristics
    iv. Emissions Data
    v. Connection to the Jackson County Clean Data Modeling
    vi. Results
V. When promulgated, what are the effects of this action?
    A. Jackson County, Missouri
    B. Wyandotte County, Kansas
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-
0155, 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. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to determine that the Jackson County 2010 1-hr
primary SO2 nonattainment area (hereby referred to as the
``Jackson County area''), in Missouri, has attained the 2010 1-hr
primary SO2 NAAQS.\1\ This proposed determination of
attainment is based on a May 2018 request (later supplemented) from the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) asking the EPA to
consider complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data from the 2015-2017 monitoring period and make a
determination that the area has attained the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In accordance with appendix T to 40 CFR part 50, the 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality
monitoring site when the valid 1-hour primary standard design value
is less than or equal to 75 parts per billion (ppb). 40 CFR
50.17(b).
    \2\ In accordance with appendix T to 40 CFR part 50, a 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS design value is valid if it encompasses
three consecutive calendar years of complete data. A year meets data
completeness requirements when all 4 quarters are complete. A
quarter is complete when at least 75 percent of the sampling days
for each quarter have complete data. A sampling day has complete
data if 75 percent of the hourly concentration values, including
state-flagged data affected by exceptional events which have been
approved for exclusion by the Administrator, are reported.
    \3\ Monitoring data must be reported, quality assured, and
certified in accordance with the requirements set forth in 40 CFR
part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also proposing to redesignate the Wyandotte County,
Kansas 1-hr SO2 NAAQS unclassifiable area (hereinafter
referred to as the ``Wyandotte County area'') to attainment/
unclassifiable based on a January 2017 request from the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment (KDHE).\4\ The EPA's proposed
redesignation of the Wyandotte County area is based on air quality
dispersion modeling submitted by the KDHE and supplemented by modeling
analysis from the MoDNR for the Jackson County area. The relationship
between the MoDNR's modeling analysis and the Wyandotte County area is
explained in more detail in the ``What is the EPA's Analysis of the
Information Submitted by the States?'' and ``Connection to the Jackson
County Clean Data Modeling'' sections of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Designations for the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS
occurred/will occur in four phases, often referred to as ``Rounds''.
During Round 2 of the designations process, the EPA used the
designation category ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for areas with
air quality monitoring or modeling data demonstrating attainment and
for areas for which such data weren't available but for which the
EPA had reason to believe the areas were likely attainment and had
not been determined to be contributing to nearby violations (see 81
FR 45039, July 12, 2016, page 45041 footnote 3). For Round 3 of the
designations process the EPA used the designations category of
``attainment/unclassifiable'' instead of ``unclassifiable/
attainment''. The EPA noted that the inversion of the order of the
words ``attainment'' and ``unclassifiable'' in the amended term
``attainment/unclassifiable'' had no consequence itself, and that
there were no regulatory consequences of the change in, or clarified
interpretation of, the terminology applied to the areas to which the
terms are applied. For consistency, the EPA also inverted the order
of ``attainment'' and ``unclassifiable'' for areas previously
designated in Round 2 (81 FR 45039, July 12, 2016, and 81 FR 89870,
December 13, 2016). The re-ordering of the terms had no regulatory
consequence and did not revisit the determinations made in Round 2
for these areas. The EPA found the change was consistent with
Congress' definition of ``attainment area'' in CAA section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) (see 83 FR 1098, January 9, 2018, page 1099).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has made the monitoring and modeling data available in the
docket to this rulemaking through www.regulations.gov.

III. What is the background of this action?

A. Designations

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a health-based 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS at 75 ppb.\5\ Upon promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the
EPA to designate any area that does not meet (or that contributes to
ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the NAAQS as
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our final designations published on August 5, 2013, also known
as Round 1 of the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS designations process,
the EPA designated a portion of Jackson County, Missouri, as
nonattainment for the 2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS, effective
October 4, 2013.6 7 The designation was based on 2009-2011
monitoring data from the Troost monitor in Kansas City, Missouri, which
monitored violations of the standard (see section IV. of this document
for additional monitoring information). The effective date of the
nonattainment designation was October 4, 2013. The CAA establishes that
areas designated as nonattainment must attain the standard no later
than five years from the date of designation (i.e., by October 4,
2018). The MoDNR was also required to submit a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the nonattainment area to the EPA that meets the
requirements of CAA sections 110, 172(c) and 191-192 within 18 months
following the October 4, 2013, effective date of designation (i.e., by
April 4, 2015). The MoDNR submitted the ``Nonattainment Area Plan for
the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard--
Jackson County Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area'' on October 16, 2015.
The MoDNR withdrew the attainment plan, except for the baseline
emissions inventory, from the EPA's consideration and review for action
on June 6, 2018.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 78 FR 47191, August 5, 2013, codified at 40 CFR 81.326.
    \7\ There are four rounds of designations for the 2010 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS. Round 1 was completed in August 2013. Round 2
was completed in July and December 2016. Round 3 was completed in
January 2018. Round 4 is to be signed by the Administrator no later
than December 31, 2020.
    \8\ See 84 FR 3703 (February 13, 2019). The EPA published a fnal
rulemaking in the Federal Register approving the MoDNR's 172(c)(3)
baseline year inventory for the Jackson County area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our final designations published on July 12, 2016, also known as
Round 2 of the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS designations process, the
EPA designated the Wyandotte County area as unclassifiable. The
unclassifiable designation was based on information the KDHE provided
to the EPA. The KDHE air dispersion modeling analyses indicated modeled
compliance with the NAAQS. However, the modeling analyses included
emission rates for sources in Missouri that weren't reflective of
actual emissions or the sources' federally enforceable allowable
emissions at the time of designation.\9\ Based on this information, the
EPA determined that it did not have enough information demonstrating
whether the Wyandotte County Area was or was not meeting the 2010 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS or its impacts on the Jackson County area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The submittal also indicated that a previously significant
source of SO2, the Kansas Board of Public Utilities-
Quindaro location, did not need to be included in the supporting
modeling because the facility switched to natural gas combustion in
its boilers in 2015. The operating permit for the Quindaro facility
is provided in the docket to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Data Policy

    Where states request a clean data determination of a designated
SO2 NAAQS nonattainment area, the EPA will determine whether
an area has attained the NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data
(when available) and air quality dispersion modeling information for
the affected area as necessary. The EPA issued ``Clean Data'' policy
memoranda for SO2 and other NAAQS describing suspended
attainment planning requirements for nonattainment areas that are
attaining the NAAQS, but have not yet been redesignated to
attainment.10 11

Additionally, the EPA has issued national rulemakings that have
codified this policy for ozone and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS.\12\ Under the Clean Data Policy, the EPA
interprets the requirements of the CAA that are specifically designed
to help an area achieve attainment, such as attainment demonstrations
and implementation of reasonably available control measures (including
reasonably available control technology), reasonable further progress
(RFP) demonstrations, and contingency measures, to be suspended as long
as air quality continues to meet the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Memorandum of December 14, 2004, from Steve
Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to
the EPA Air Division Directors, ``Clean Data Policy for the Fine
Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' This document is
available at: http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/guidance.htm.
    \11\ The memorandum of April 23, 2014, from Steve Page,
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the
EPA Air Division Directors ``Guidance for 1-hr SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions'' provides guidance for the
application of the clean data policy to the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS. This document is available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
    \12\ See, e.g., 81 FR 58010, 81 FR 58127-81 FR 58129 (August 24,
2016) (promulgating 40 CFR 51.1015); 80 FR 12264, 80 FR 12296
(promulgating 51.1118). See also 70 FR 71612, 70 FR 71664-70 FR
71646 (November 29, 2005); 72 FR 20585, 72 FR 20603-72 FR 20605
(April 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the memorandum of April 23, 2014, from Steve Page, Director, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the EPA Air Division
Directors ``Guidance for 1-hr SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions'' (2014 SO2 Guidance), the EPA explained its
intention to extend the Clean Data Policy to 1-hour SO2
nonattainment areas that attained the standard. As noted therein, the
legal bases set forth in the various guidance documents and regulations
establishing the Clean Data Policy for other pollutants are equally
pertinent to all NAAQS.\13\ This proposed rule is also consistent with
prior actions of the EPA applying the Clean Data Policy to two other
nonattainment areas under the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See court cases upholding legal basis for the EPA's Clean
Data Determination Policy, NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d at 1258-61 (D.C.
Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996);
Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, 315 Fed. App. 651, 652 (9th Cir. 2009).
    \14\ 82 FR 13227 (March 10, 2016) and 81 FR 28718 (May 10,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. How does a nonattainment area achieve ``Clean Data'' for the 2010 1-
hr primary SO2 NAAQS?

    Generally, the EPA relies on ambient air quality monitoring data
alone in order to make determinations of attainment for areas
designated nonattainment for a NAAQS. However, given the Agency's
historical approach toward SO2, the source-specific nature
of SO2 emissions, and the localized effect of those
emissions, in the preamble to the 2010 1-hr primary SO2
NAAQS rulemaking, the EPA stated that it did not expect to rely solely
on monitored air quality data in all areas when determining if an area
has attained the 2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35551,
June 22, 2010). As the EPA noted in the preamble, in order for the EPA
to determine that an area is attaining the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS, dispersion modeling may be needed to show that
there are no violating receptors even if a monitoring site showed no
violations.\15\ This was because, as the EPA explained in the preamble,
the Agency did not expect that most existing SO2 monitors
were well sited to record maximum 1-hour ambient SO2
concentrations under the new NAAQS. The 2014 SO2 Guidance
states that, for a nonattainment area that was designated based on air
quality monitoring data to be determined as attaining the NAAQS, the
state would need to meet a series of criteria. First, the state would
need to demonstrate that the area is meeting the standard based on
three consecutive calendar years of air quality monitoring that is
complete and quality-assured (consistent with 40 CFR part 58
requirements). Second, the state would need to either (1) provide
modeling of the most recent three years of actual emissions for the
area or (2) provide a demonstration that the affected monitor(s) is or
are in the area of maximum concentration. As explained in more detail
in section (d) below, the EPA finds that it is permissible to
substitute current source-specific federally enforceable and in effect
allowable emissions for actual emissions for the purpose of
demonstrating (1) above as long as certain requirements are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As noted in the preamble to the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35551, June 22 2010), this has been the
EPA's general position throughout the history of implementation of
the SO2 NAAQS program. See, e.g., ``Air Quality Control
Regions, Criteria, and Control techniques; Attainment Status
Designations,'' 43 FR 40412, 43 FR 40415-43 FR 40416 (September 11,
1978); ``Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria, and Control
Techniques,'' 43 FR 45993, 43 FR 46000-43 FR 46002 (October 5,
1978); ``Air Quality Implementation Plans: State Implementation
Plans; General Preamble,'' 57 FR 13498, 57 FR 13545, 57 FR 13547-57
FR 13557, 57 FR 13548 (April 16, 1992); ``Approval and Promulgation
of State Implementation Plans; Call for Sulfur Dioxide SIP Revisions
for Billings/Laurel, MT,'' 58 FR 41430 (August 4, 1993);
``Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio,'' 59
FR 12886, 59 FR 12887 (March 18, 1994); ``Ambient Air Quality
Standards, National and Implementation Plans for Sulfur Oxides
(Sulfur Dioxide),'' 60 FR 12492, 60 FR 12494-60 FR 12495 (March 7,
1995); ``Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approval and
Promulgation: Various States: Montana,'' 67 FR 22167, 67 FR 22170-67
FR 22171, 67 FR 22183-67 FR 22887 (May 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a demonstration shows that the monitor(s) is or are in the area
of maximum concentration, the EPA finds that it may be appropriate to
determine that the nonattainment area is attaining the standard based
on monitoring data alone.
    The 2014 SO2 Guidance states that, when air agencies
provide monitoring and/or modeling to support clean data
determinations, the monitoring data provided by the state should follow
the EPA's ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented
Monitoring Technical Assistance Document'' (SO2 Monitoring
TAD) and the modeling provided by the state should follow the EPA's
``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance
Document'' (SO2 Modeling TAD).\16\ The SO2
Modeling TAD outlines modeling approaches for characterizing air
quality under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for designations. In the
SO2 Modeling TAD, the EPA recommends using a minimum of the
most recent three years of actual emissions data, and concurrent
meteorological data, so that the modeling better simulates what an
ambient air monitor would observe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The EPA released earlier versions, December and May 2013,
of both the modeling and monitoring TADs, as well as an earlier
February 2016 version of the modeling TAD. The February 2016 version
of the ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented
Monitoring Draft Technical Assistance Document, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division'',
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2monitoringtad.pdf. The August 2016 version of the
``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance
Document, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Assessment Division'', can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf. The December
2013 versions of the documents can be found in the docket to this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What are the criteria to be redesignated from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable?

    Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides the framework for changing
the area designations for any NAAQS pollutant.

Section 107(d)(3)(A) provides that the Administrator may notify the
Governor of any state that the designation of an area should be revised
``on the basis of air quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the
Administrator deems appropriate.'' The Act further provides in section
107(d)(3)(D) that even if the Administrator has not notified a state
Governor that a designation should be revised, the Governor of any
state may, on the Governor's own motion, submit a request to revise the
designation of any area, and the Administrator must approve or deny the
request.
    When approving or denying a request to redesignate an area, the EPA
bases its decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the
considerations provided under section 107(d)(3)(A).\17\ In keeping with
section 107(d)(1)(A), areas that are redesignated to attainment/
unclassifiable must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus
must meet the relevant NAAQS. In addition, the area must not contribute
to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists specific
requirements for redesignations, those requirements apply to
redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment and, therefore,
are not applicable here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For designations, the SO2 Modeling TAD indicates that it
is acceptable to use federally enforceable and in effect allowable
emission rates instead of actual emission rates. Although past actual
emissions could have been higher than those under the most recent
allowable rate, the SO2 Modeling TAD reflects the EPA's
belief that it is reasonable to account for any lower allowable limits
currently federally enforceable and in effect when determining if an
area is attaining the NAAQS. In addition, the SO2 Modeling
TAD indicates that, where an allowable emissions limit has been lowered
during the relevant three-year period (such as through the
implementation of emissions controls), the air agency may rely on the
new federally enforceable and in effect limit in demonstrating that the
modeled limit assures attainment. In this fashion, the most recent
permitted or potential to emit rate should be used along with a minimum
of the most recent three years of meteorological data.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See page 10 of the August 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA finds that modeling a mix of current allowable emissions
and actual emissions would be consistent with the SO2
Modeling TAD for designations if the same type of emissions is used for
each source for all three years. For instance, if a state decided to
use current federally enforceable and in effect allowables for a
facility in a modeling analysis, the state would need to use current
allowables for all three years of the analysis for that facility. The
state would not necessarily need to use current allowables for the
other sources in the analysis (i.e., actuals would be permissible for
all three years for other sources in the area). The EPA finds this kind
of analysis is sufficient for clean data determinations, which, similar
to designations, use the analysis to determine whether the area is
currently meeting the NAAQS. We also believe that this analysis can be
used for purposes of a redesignation of an area from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable, where the inquiry is also whether the area
is factually attaining the NAAQS. Such redesignations are functionally
similar to initial designations and are not subject to the requirements
of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), which require attainment to be due to
permanent and enforceable measures and which require a demonstration
that the area will maintain the NAAQS for ten years. Per the 2014
SO2 Guidance, in redesignations of nonattainment areas to
attainment, which are subject to the requirements of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E), states will be expected to use federally enforceable and
in effect allowable emissions in air quality modeling.
    The EPA recognizes that its 2014 SO2 Guidance does not
on its face suggest that modeling allowable emissions or a mix of
allowable and actual emissions would be an acceptable alternative to
modeling actual emissions in the clean data determination or
redesignation of an area from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable contexts. However, the Agency considers it to have been
an oversight on its part not to have addressed this alternative
possibility in the 2014 SO2 Guidance, as the Agency clearly
has endorsed the use of both actual emissions and allowable emissions
in the SO2 Modeling TAD in general and in the recent rounds
of area designations under the SO2 NAAQS, in contexts where,
as here, the Agency is making a factual judgment about whether an area
has attained the NAAQS. Moreover, the 2014 guidance also suggests that
modeling of allowable emissions, combined with other information, could
also be used to determine whether, after the attainment deadline has
passed, areas in fact timely attained the NAAQS under CAA section 179.
Therefore, although the SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance was
silent on using allowable emissions in the clean data determination and
redesignations of an area from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable contexts, the EPA finds that it is not inconsistent with
the guidance to endorse that practice now, provided the allowables-
based modeling is conducted appropriately pursuant to the
SO2 Modeling TAD and the code of federal regulations at 40
CFR part 51, appendix W--Guideline on Air Quality Models (hereafter
referred to as ``appendix W'') and regulations governing stack heights
and dispersion techniques at 40 CFR 51.100 and 40 CFR 51.118 when
applicable.

E. What information did Missouri provide to the EPA to demonstrate that
the Jackson County area has attained the NAAQS?

    On May 4, 2018, the MoDNR submitted a request asking the EPA to
determine that the nonattainment area attained the 2010 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS per the EPA's Clean Data Policy. The request
included three years of complete, quality assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data from the 2015-2017 monitoring period; the
design value (dv) for 2015-2017 was 57 ppb. In a response letter, dated
November 13, 2018, the EPA stated that, because the request did not
include a modeling demonstration showing attainment utilizing the most
recent three years of actual emissions or a demonstration that the
monitor was located in the area of maximum concentration for the
nonattainment area, the state's request did not contain the necessary
supporting information as outlined in the EPA's 2014 SO2
Guidance. In an emailed letter dated March 1, 2019, the state provided
modeling of the most recent three years of actual emissions (2016-2018)
for the nonattainment area. However, the EPA verbally expressed concern
to the MoDNR regarding data used to derive the background concentration
in the modeling analysis.\19\ The MoDNR responded via email with an
update to its modeling analysis.\20\ On April 24,

2019, via email, the MoDNR submitted an explanation of its
interpretations of regulations and guidance, in particular its
interpretations of appendix W and guidance in regard to determining
background concentrations and which sources needed to be included in
the clean data determination modeling analysis. The EPA continued to
provide guidance to the MoDNR regarding background concentration
analysis and sources to include in the model. On June 19, 2019, via
email, the MoDNR submitted a revised modeling demonstration (hereafter
referred to as the Jackson County clean data determination modeling) to
support its request that the EPA determine the Jackson County area has
attained the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. In the Jackson County
clean data determination modeling, the State adjusted its background
concentration and included additional sources outside of the area in
the model using actual emissions. The MoDNR submitted a correction to
its June 19, 2019 modeling files on February 26, 2020. The correction
ensured that the modeling files were reflective of the narrative
description of how the MoDNR calculated and modeled hourly emission
rates for sources that did not have Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS).\21\ The EPA is proposing to determine that the Jackson
County area has attained the NAAQS based on its review of the MoDNR's
June 19, 2019, Jackson County clean data determination modeling
submittal and the February 2020 correction along with the monitored
ambient air data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Essentially, the MoDNR estimated days in 2016 and 2017 when
a primary facility in the nonattainment area (Veolia) was burning
coal in conjunction with monitored values at the design value
monitor (Troost) instead of providing the actual days when the
facility was burning coal. Additionally, the EPA had concerns with
the background concentration of 13 parts per billion as described in
the analysis and the list of sources included with actual emissions.
    \20\ The MoDNR updated the background concentration analysis to
include actual days (not estimated days) that Veolia was burning
coal in 2016 and 2017.
    \21\ As previously mentioned, the MoDNR submitted modeling on
February 24, 2020 to correct the modeled actual emissions at three
sources (Audubon Materials, Blue River Treatment Plant and KCPL
Northeast Station). The February 24, 2020 modeling did not change
the maximum modeled results from the June 19, 2019 modeling
submittal. The February 2020 correction modeling data is included in
the docket to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What information did Kansas provide to the EPA to demonstrate that
the Wyandotte County area should be redesignated from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable?

    On September 17, 2015, the KDHE provided an air dispersion modeling
analysis that demonstrated that the Wyandotte County Area was in
attainment of the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS as part of its area
designation recommendations for the Round 2 designations
process.22 23 During the public comment period for the
proposed designations, the EPA received revised modeling from Kansas
City Board of Public Utilities (BPU) (hereinafter referred to as the
``BPU March 2016 modeling'') for the Wyandotte County area.\24\ In its
January 2017 Round 3 designations boundary recommendation submittal,
the KDHE recommended that the EPA designate the Wyandotte County area
as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' (we have already discussed the change
in classification to ``attainment/unclassifiable'' in the ``What Action
is the EPA Proposing?'' section of this document). Because the area was
already designated in Round 2, the EPA had no obligation to consider
the KDHE's recommendation for the Wyandotte County area at that time
and instead said that it would consider the KDHE's request for
redesignation in a separate action.\25\ The KDHE resubmitted the BPU
March 2016 modeling to the EPA in January 2017 as part of its
redesignation request for the Wyandotte County area. The EPA is
proposing to redesignate the Wyandotte County area based on the BPU
March 2016 modeling and the MoDNR's Jackson County area clean data
determination modeling (with the February 2020 correction). The BPU
March 2016 modeling and the MoDNR's June 19, 2019, Jackson County clean
data determination modeling (and the February 2020 correction) are
described in more detail in ``What is the EPA's Rationale for Proposing
this Action?'' section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The modeling was performed by Trinity Consultants for the
Board of Public Utilities utilizing the December 2013 version of the
Modeling TAD.
    \23\ The highest modeled concentration of SO2 was 160
[mu]g/m\3\ (61 ppb).
    \24\ Trinity Consultants prepared the revised modeling BPU March
2016 modeling utilizing the December 2013 Modeling TAD.
    \25\ The EPA's TSD for its Round 3 designations can be found at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/1_2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

i. Jackson County, Missouri
    The EPA is proposing to issue a determination of attainment for the
Jackson County area based on the area's 2016-2018 monitoring data at
the Troost monitor and the MoDNR's June 19, 2019 updated modeling
demonstration (with the February 2020 correction).\26\ The 2014
SO2 Guidance recommends that states, at a minimum, model the
most recent three years of actual emissions data and concurrent
meteorological data, for the modeling to simulate what a monitor would
observe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The EPA is utilizing the most current ambient monitoring
data at the Troost monitor to support this action. The State's
request was based on 2015-2017 data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The state modeled actual emissions for all sources inside of, and
20 kilometers (km) from, the nonattainment area.\27\ The modeled 3-year
DV in the clean data determination modeling analysis is 113.9 [mu]g/
m\3\, or 43.5 ppb, which meets the 1-hour standard of 75 ppb.\28\ The
model results satisfy the criteria for determinations of attainment
according to the EPA's guidance and policy. See section IV.b. ``Jackson
County Clean Data Modeling'' for more information regarding the EPA's
analysis of the modeling submitted by the MoDNR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The MoDNR also included KCP&L-Sibley, a source that is 50
km from the area, in the modeling at its most recent three years of
actual emissions because it is a source of SO2 emissions
that may impact concentration gradients in the area.
    \28\ See section IV.b. Jackson County Clean Data Determination
for more information regarding the EPA's adjusted background
concentration value and impacts to the modeled maximum impact
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Wyandotte County, Kansas
    The unclassifiable designation for the Wyandotte County area was
based on modeling information the KDHE and the BPU provided to the EPA
in 2015 and 2016. Although both air dispersion modeling analyses
demonstrated that the Wyandotte County area would be in attainment with
the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS based on the emissions rates used in
the modeling, the EPA was not able to rely upon the analyses to
designate the Wyandotte County Area as attainment/unclassifiable.
    In our February 16, 2016, notice of intended designations, the EPA
stated that it was not able to rely upon the September 2015 modeling
analysis provided by KDHE because: Certain emission rates included in
the model did not represent either the most recent three years of
actual emissions or the federally enforceable and in effect allowable
emission limits from sources in Missouri; a source of SO2
emissions in Missouri was excluded--Independence Power and Light (IPL)-
Blue Valley; concerns with the modeling receptor grid; and the
inclusion of a stack at the BPU-Nearman facility as a building
structure.\29\ Specifically, the emission rates used in the modeling
analysis submitted by KDHE in September 2015 for the following emission
points (EP) were at issue (e.g., State only limits): Veolia EP1, EP2,
and EP3; IPL-Missouri City EP5 and EP6; Kansas City Power and Light
(KCPL)-Sibley EP5A, EP5B and EP5C; KCPL-Hawthorn EP6 (Unit 5);

and IPL-Blue Valley EP3, EP4, and EP5.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 81 FR 10563, February 16, 2016.
    \30\ There are several discrepancies in reference to which
emission points (EPs) were modeled. A comparison of the EPs in the
September 2015 modeling, the BPU March 2016 modeling, the comments
submitted by BPU during the Round 2 designations process and the
EPA's Round 2 final designations TSD and MoDNR permits don't all
match. For example, the modeling protocol (appendix A) for the
September 2015 modeling indicates that EPs at IPL Blue Valley would
be included in the model but the modeling results (appendix B) don't
include those EPs. Appendix A indicates Veolia EP2 (Boilers 6 and 8)
only would be modeled, but appendix B indicates EP1 (Boiler 1A), EP2
(Boilers 6 and 8) and EP3 (Boiler 7) were modeled. Also, Hawthorn's
Unit 5 (EP6) was referred to as Unit 6 in the EPA's Round 2
designations proposal TSD. This is believed to be a typographical
error and the TSD should have referred to Unit 5 instead.
Additionally, Unit 5 (EP6) is referred to as EU0010 in Hawthorn's
2017 title V operating permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the public comment period, the EPA received revised modeling
from BPU (the ``BPU March 2016'' modeling) for the Wyandotte County
area.\31\ Although the BPU March 2016 modeling submittal expanded the
modeled receptor grid to include portions of Platte, Clay and Jackson
counties in Missouri, added IPL-Blue Valley, removed the stack as a
building structure, and included several Missouri sources at their
actual emission rates instead of State only limits, the modeling
continued to rely on emission rates for Veolia that were based on State
only limits.32 33 The BPU March 2016 modeling utilized: 2013
Actual emission data for IPL-Missouri City EP5 and EP6; and IPL-Blue
Valley EP3, EP4 and EP5; 3-years of CEMS data (2012-2014) for KCPL-
Sibley EP5A, EP5B and EP5C and KCPL-Hawthorn EP6 (Unit 5). The KDHE
resubmitted the BPU March 2016 modeling to the EPA in January 2017 as
part of its redesignation request for the Wyandotte County area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Trinity Consultants prepared the revised modeling BPU March
2016 modeling utilizing the December 2013 Modeling TAD.
    \32\ The BPU March 2016 modeling indicates that Veolia EP1, EP2
and EP3 were modeled at ``federally enforceable SIP limits.''
Trinity Consultants got the limits from a 2015 state rule--10 CSR
10-6.261 Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, but that rule was not
SIP approved when the modeling was submitted to the EPA. However, a
2013 operating permit, operating permit# OP2012-050, required EP1
and EP3 to burn natural gas with fuel oil as a back-up and limited
EP2 to burn coal, natural gas and fuel oil as a back-up. A 2016
construction permit, construction permit# 122016-09, removed fuel
oil as a back-up for EP1 and required EP2 to burn natural gas only
as well. The ``Project Description/Emissions Calculations'' section
of the construction permit states that the ``entire installation''
had not burned fuel oil since 2001. In 2018, the MoDNR issued Veolia
a revised operating permit, operating permit# OP2018-06, which
included EP3's removal of fuel-oil as a back-up, stating that the
unit was to burn natural gas exclusively.
    \33\ In 2015, Missouri's rule included limits for Veolia EP1,
EP2 and E3. The State submitted 10 CSR 10-6.261 to the EPA for
approval into the SIP in October 2015, then withdrew the rule in
April 2018 and revised it, removing Veolia (and limits for other
sources) from the rule. The state resubmitted the rule for the EPA's
approval in 2019. At the time of this document, the EPA has not
acted on the State's request to approve the revised rule into the
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As already noted, the BPU March 2016 modeling utilized emission
rates that were neither representative of the federally enforceable and
in effect emission rates nor the most recent three years of actual
emissions for Veolia. However, subsequent to the Round 2 designations,
Missouri issued air construction permit #122016-009, effective on
December 21, 2016, to Veolia limiting EP1 and EP2 to natural gas only,
removing the permitted ability for EP1 to also burn fuel oil as a back-
up and removing the permitted ability for EP2 to burn coal and fuel oil
as a back-up.34 35 A title V operating permit, permit
#OP2018-006, was issued in 2018. The title V operating permit included
a requirement that the facility burn natural gas only in EP3-removing
fuel oil as a back-up.36 37 38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ https://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/permits/docs/veolia-kc2016cp.pdf.
    \35\ The MoDNR reviewed Veolia's combustion of coal in 2016 and
2017 for compliance with the December 2016 construction permit. The
permit effective date was December 21, 2016, however, it's unclear
from the permit if the requirement to burn natural gas only came
into effect on the effective date of the permit or the date the work
specified in the permit was complete, which was January 2018. In
addition, the MoDNR gave Veolia a one-year extension of the
compliance date with the Boiler MACT which allowed them to burn coal
until the end of January 2017. The record indicates that no coal was
burned after January of 2017.
    \36\ https://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/permits/docs/veolia-kc2018op.pdf.
    \37\ It should be noted that construction permit #122016-06
indicates that fuel oil had not been burned installation wide since
2011.
    \38\ As noted in the ``Connection to the Jackson County Clean
Data Modeling'' secion of this document, in the BPU 2016 modeling,
the emissions from EP3 were modeled conservatively compared to the
most recent three years of actual emissions (i.e. at a higher
emissions rate), at a rate of 0.5 lb/hr. The Jackson County clean
data determination modeling included EP3 at its actual emissions,
which corresponded to modeling rates of 0.3 lb/hr, 0.3 lb/hr, and
0.1 lb/hr for 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. Thus, EPA can rely
on the 2016 BPU modeling to determine that the Wyandotte County area
is meeting the NAAQS since the BPU modeling used an hourly modeled
rate greater than the hourly rate based on actual emissions from the
three most recent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the issuance of the Veolia 2016 construction and 2018
operating permits, the emission rates used in the BPU March 2016
modeling are now conservative (i.e. overestimating the emission rates)
in relation to the federally enforceable and in effect emission rates
for that source. That is, the allowable facility-wide emissions rate
used in the BPU March 2016 modeling, based on state only limits, was
352.8 pounds per hour. With the issuance of the 2016 construction
permit and the 2018 operating permit, EP1, EP2 and EP3 are now limited
to natural gas combustion only. The estimation of the facility-wide
maximum emissions based on natural gas is 1.06 pounds per hour.\39\ In
the Jackson County clean data determination modeling, discussed in more
detail in sections IV.b and IV.c.v of this document, Veolia was modeled
using the most recent three years (2016-2018) of actual emissions which
include a mixture of EP2 burning coal on some days in 2016 and 2017 and
natural gas only in 2018. See table 5 in section IV.c.v. for a
comparison of the BPU March 2016 model emission rates and the Jackson
County clean data determination model emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ With the required burning of natural gas, Veolia' facility
wide potential to emit is 4.66 tons per year of SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, in the BPU March 2016 modeling, 2013 actual emissions for
IPL-Blue Valley Units EP3, EP4 and EP5 were used in each of the three
years modeled (2012-2014). These actual emissions reflect coal
combustion, and the possibility to burn fuel oil as a back-up. In 2015,
IPL-Blue Valley switched to natural gas with fuel oil as back-up.\40\
The EPA proposes to find that the BPU March 2016 modeling emissions
rates, based on coal (and the possibility to burn fuel oil as a back-
up), are either representative of actual emissions before the switch to
natural gas or conservative compared to the actual emissions from
current natural gas operations (and the ability to burn fuel oil as a
back-up) for the most recent three years of actual emissions and can
therefore be relied upon in the analysis.\41\ In the Jackson County
clean data determination modeling, discussed in more detail in sections
IV.b and IV.c.v of this document, IPL-Blue Valley was modeled using the
most recent three years (2016-2018) of actual emissions. See table 5 in
section IV.c.v. for a comparison of the BPU March 2016 model emission
rates and the Jackson County clean data determination model emission
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ IPL-Blue Valley Station ceased coal combustion in EP5 (Unit
3) as of 4/15/2015 and in EP3 (Unit 1) and EP4 (Unit 2) as of 9/9/
2015.
    \41\ MoDNR issued Title V operating permit number OP2017-27
(hereinafter referred to as ``OP2017-27'') to IPL-Blue Valley on
March 28, 2017. The permit limits the fuel to natural gas only with
fuel oil backup for EP3, EP4 and EP5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also notes that it is unlikely that IPL-Blue Valley's
actual emissions will increase significntly as the operating permit
clearly limits the fuel for EP3, EP4 and EP5 to natural gas only with
limited fuel oil backup. All of the

emission units in the permit that supported coal combustion (such as
coal handling equipment) have been removed from permit OP2017-27,
effectively eliminating coal combustion as a fuel option at the
facility.\42\ In addition, the basis for the non-applicability of 40
CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU in the permit is the fact that the emission
units are not coal-fired or oil-fired electric utility steam generating
units. As discussed in the Statement of Basis to OP2017-27, the
facility submitted a construction permit application in 2014 to cease
firing coal in EP5. Missouri ultimately determined that a construction
permit was not required, presumably because the project did not result
in an increase in emissions that were greater than Missouri's minor New
Source Review permitting thresholds, but the application signaled IPL's
intent to cease burning coal for EP5. With the issuance of OP2017-27,
IPL's intent to cease burning coal became memorialized in the
facility's federally enforceable title V air permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ In a letter dated December 24, 2014, the MoDNR told IPL-
Blue Valley that it recommended the coal handling equipment be
dismantled or otherwise permanently disabled upon the cease firing
of coal, such that coal cannot be fired. The installation should
report the nature and extent of the actions performed and their
date. The letter states that even if coal handling equipment was not
rendered inoperable, a construction permit would be required prior
to firing coal. The installation's coal delivery contract expires
December 31, 2014 and there are no plans to renew it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the potential to combust fuel oil as a back-up, the
source is limited to a period of less than 48-hours annually to combust
fuel oil. Additionally, although noted under a requirement for
particulate matter (10 10 CSR 10-6.405, Restriction of Particulate
Matter Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect
Heating), the permit states that because the source is limited to
burning natural gas or fuel oil with less than 1.2 percent sulfur
content, the source is in compliance with the MoDNR's particulate
matter regulation. Given how few hours the facility is permitted to
burn fuel oil, the facility when burning fuel oil may be treated as an
intermittent source that, in accordance with EPA's intermittent source
policy, need not be explicitly modeled.
    Additionally, in the 2016 BPU modeling analysis IPL-Missouri City
emission rates were based on actual emissions from 2013. In September
2015, the IPL-Missouri City units ceased power generation and are in
the process of being demolished. Since the two IPL-Missouri City units
are no longer able to operate, the EPA proposes to find that the
emission rates used in BPU's modeling based on 2013 actual emissions
are conservative compared to the most recent three years of actual
emissions rates, and notes that actual emissions rates are likely to
remain zero given that the source has ceased operation.\43\ In the
Jackson County clean data determination modeling, discussed in more
detail in sections IV.b and IV.c.v of this document, IPL-Missouri City
was modeled using the most recent three years (2016-2018) of emissions
which were zero. See table 5 in section IV.c.v. for a comparison of the
BPU March 2016 model emission rates and the Jackson County clean data
determination model emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The title V Operating Permit for IPL-Missouri City was
terminated on January 31, 2018. In the event IPL-Missouri were to
try and start operation, they would need to submit a major New
Source Review permit application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the EPA is proposing that because the 2016 BPU modeling
now represents the Missouri emission points--Veolia EP1, EP2, and EP3;
IPL Missouri City EP5 and EP6; KCPL Sibley EP5A, EP5B and EP5C; KCPL
Hawthorn EP6; and IPL Blue Valley EP3, EP4, and EP5--at either their
2013 actual emission rate (KCPL-Sibley and Hawthorn), a rate that is
higher than a federally enforceable and in effect facility wide maximum
emission rate or most recent three years of actual emissions, depending
on the emissions unit (Veolia), or emission rates that are higher than
the sources' most recent three years of actual emission rates (IPL-Blue
Valley and Missouri City), in addition to the Missouri June 19, 2019
clean data determination modeling (with the February 2020 correction)
clearly showing that when considering 2016-2018 actual emissions the
Wyandotte County sources are not causing or contributing to a modeled
violation of the NAAQS, it can now consider the BPU March 2016 modeling
to redesignate the Wyandotte County Area to attainment/unclassifiable.
The EPA acknowledges that the BPU March 2016 modeling was developed
using an earlier version of the Modeling TAD, however, the EPA proposes
to find that the changes at issue in the update to the TAD should not
impact reliability of the modeling.\44\ The EPA's analysis of the BPU
March 2016 modeling is provided in the ``What is the EPA's Analysis of
the Air Quality Monitoring and Modeling Data?'' section of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The 2016 TAD update addressed receptor exclusion and
clarified that, at minimum, 3 years of meteorological data and
emissions data need to be modeled. Both these changes do not affect
the BPU modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is the EPA's analysis of the air quality monitoring and
modeling data?

A. Monitoring Data

    According to the 2014 SO2 Guidance, to support a clean
data determination based on monitoring, the State needs to demonstrate
that the area is meeting the standard based on three consecutive
calendar years of complete and quality-assured air quality monitoring
data (consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements) at an air quality
monitor that is demonstrated to be in the area of maximum
concentration. The EPA has determined that three complete consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data from the
Troost (Jackson County, Missouri) and JFK (Wyandotte County, Kansas)
monitors have been recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), and
the data meets the requirements of appendix T to 40 CFR part 50 and 40
CFR part 58. This data suggests improved air quality in both areas. As
shown below in table 1, the 99th percentile 1-hour average (in ppb) and
3-year dv at the Troost and JFK monitors has decreased since 2013 and
do not show violations of the 2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS.
The certified 3-year 2016-2018 dv for the Jackson County area is 11
ppb; the certified 3-year 2016-2018 dv for the Wyandotte County area is
7 ppb.
    However, MoDNR did not submit a demonstration showing that the
Troost monitor is in the area of maximum concentration. Thus, the
monitoring data on its own is not enough to support a clean data
determination in this case, and, as such, the MoDNR submitted modeling
to support the clean data determination.

                                    Table 1--99th Percentile 1-Hour Average in Parts Per Billion (ppb) and 3-Year Design Value at the Troost and JFK Monitors
                                                                                [2013-2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2016-2018
                    Monitor                                Site  name                  2013            2014            2015            2016            2017            2018        design value
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29-095-0034...................................  Troost..........................             156           125.2             142             9.4            18.4             6.1              11
20-209-0021...................................  JFK.............................              45            55.1            37.6             9.6             5.5             6.1               7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Jackson County Clean Data Modeling

    As noted earlier, the 2014 SO2 Guidance states that, for
the EPA to make a clean data determination, the State may need to
submit information in addition to monitoring data if the area was
designated nonattainment based on air quality monitoring data. In June
2019, the MoDNR submitted the Jackson County clean data determination
modeling and updated the modeling information in February 2020.\45\ The
EPA reviewed the modeling data to determine consistency with the EPA's
Clean Data Policy, the 2014 SO2 Guidance, and the August
2016 SO2 Modeling TAD. The EPA reviewed the submittal to
determine if the appropriate meteorological data, background
concentration, building downwash data, source characteristics, and
emissions data were utilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The MoDNR's submittal included 2016-2018 emissions data.
The submittal includes tables of the sources included in the model
and the emission rates used in the model. This information is
provided in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Meteorological Data
    The MoDNR elected to use the most recent three-year period (2016-
2018) of meteorological data as measured at a spatially and temporally
representative National Weather Service airport site. The MoDNR
utilized the Kansas City Downtown Airport (KC Airport), which is
located less than 1 kilometer to the north of the nonattainment area
and provides similar land-use and meteorological characteristics for
surface data, and the Topeka Regional Airport (Topeka Airport) site for
upper air data. The meteorological data from the time period of 2016-
2018 was processed using AERMET (version 18081), with the ADJ_U*
option, and paired with the emissions data as discussed below using the
AERMOD modeling system.46 47 Although appendix W and the
2014 SO2 Guidance suggest that a state use five years of
meteorological data from an NWS site, the August 2016 Modeling TAD
suggests that at a minimum a state should utilize three years of
meteorological data. Because a clean data determination for the 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS would look at monitoring data over a 3-year
timeframe, the EPA is proposing to determine that the utilization of
three years of meteorological data from these sites was sufficient for
the clean data determination modeling demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The MoDNR used AERMOD version 18081, the most recent
version of AERMOD with ADJ_U*, which is a regulatory option for
version 18081.
    \47\ See the state's modeling demonstration, provided in the
docket to this action, for model selection information (i.e.,
receptor grid selection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Background Concentration
    The MoDNR used 2016-2018 SO2 monitoring data from the
JFK air quality monitor paired with wind direction data from the KC
Airport to determine the appropriate background concentration. The
MoDNR utilized the Openair package within the R-software to plot
monitored 1-hr SO2 emissions paired with temporally matching
1-hr wind direction data. The MoDNR determined that the 180 to 260-
degree sector of the JFK monitor, represents the area that is the least
impacted by emission sources that were explicitly modeled.\48\ The
MoDNR obtained all hourly SO2 monitoring data when winds
were blowing from this sector and calculated the 99th percentile of
hourly concentrations for each year. However, the State did not use the
99th percentile of yearly maximum hourly daily concentrations in its
background sector analysis. The EPA corrected the State's background
analysis to fit the form of the 1-hr standard (e.g., 3-yr year average
of the 99th percentile of the annual maximum 1-hr daily concentration)
and determined that the sector base background would be 3.2 ppb. Table
2 provides the results from this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Given the locations/distribution of the sources that were
explicitly modeled, 180-260 is an acceptable range to ensure the
monitor is least impacted by the modeled sources. A 90-degree sector
is used to determine the area of impact on a source. Given the
location of BPU-Nearman to the NE of the JFK monitor and numerous
sources to the SE of the monitor, the 180-260 sector to determine
background is appropriate.

 Table 2--JFK Monitor's 99th Percentile SO2 Concentration Within 180-260
                          Degrees Wind Sectors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              180-260
                                                           degrees wind
                                                           sectors 99th
                          Year                              percentile
                                                           concentration
                                                               (ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016....................................................             4.1
2017....................................................             2.9
2018....................................................             2.7
                                                         ---------------
    Average.............................................             3.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average of the three-year 99th percentiles (3.2 ppb) was
determined to be the appropriate background value. The EPA proposes to
determine that the background value of 3.2 ppb is appropriate and
comports with appendix W and the 2014 SO2 Guidance.
iii. Source Characteristics
    The EPA reviewed the MoDNR's source characterization used in its
modeling demonstration, including source types, stack heights, and
stack exit temperatures and velocities. The EPA is proposing to
determine MoDNR's source characterization was consistent with the
recommendations of appendix W and the 2014 SO2 Guidance. The
State modeled all stacks at their actual stack heights, following the
2014 SO2 Guidance, which states, ``Consistent with previous
SO2 modeling guidance (U.S. EPA, 1994) and section 6.2.2 of
appendix W, for stacks with heights that are within the limits of Good
Engineering Practice (GEP), actual heights should be used in
modeling.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ U.S. EPA, 1994: SO2 Guideline Document. EPA-452/
R-95-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Emissions Data
    The MoDNR modeled the 2016-2018 SO2 emissions for every
permitted source of emissions located inside the nonattainment area and
within 20 km of the nonattainment area. The MoDNR also modeled a source
(KCPL Sibley) located within 50 km of the

nonattainment area because its SO2 emissions were over 1,000
tons/year.
    The MoDNR characterized the emissions from the sources in the
modeling inventory in three ways: (1) Veolia burning coal or natural
gas; (2) sources with CEMS data, and (3) sources without CEMS (other
than Veolia).
    For the Veolia facility, the MoDNR performed an analysis to
temporally allocate its actual emissions during the 2016 and 2017
modeling periods.\50\ The MoDNR asserted that this was necessary to
capture the effect of switching from coal to natural gas on EP2, as
required by the current operating permit (MO OP2018-006) and a 2016
construction permit (MO 122016-009). The emission inventory
questionnaire (EIQ) submitted to the MoDNR by Veolia showed that it was
still burning coal in EP2 during a few days in 2016 and 2017, with all
other days burning natural gas.\51\ Since the EIQ did not specify the
dates when the facility was still burning coal, the MoDNR contacted the
facility to obtain those dates with coal usage. The MoDNR temporalized
the coal annual emissions to hourly emissions based on those days. For
example, during 2017, EP2 operated using coal on nine days and the
MoDNR assumed coal combustion on each hour for the nine days (216
hours). The MoDNR divided the 2017 annual emissions (173.90 tons) by
216 hours and multiplied the result by 2,000 to obtain the hourly
emissions in pounds per hour (1,610.15 lbs./hour). The MoDNR then
created an hourly emission file to account for the coal emissions where
each of the 216 hours of 2017 emission year was assigned 202.88 grams
per second (grams/sec) and the remaining 8,544 hours were assigned zero
grams/sec. In addition, the remaining 8,544 hours of operation for EP2
in 2017 were modeled assuming natural gas combustion (0.30 lb/hr).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Veolia is not required to operate a CEMS.
    \51\ As previously mentioned, the MoDNR reviewed Veolia's
combustion of coal in 2016 and 2017 for compliance with the December
2016 construction permit. The permit effective date was December 21,
2016, however, it's unclear from the permit if the requirement to
burn natural gas only came into effect on the effective date of the
permit or the date the work specified in the permit was complete,
which was January 2018. In addition, the MoDNR gave Veolia a one-
year extension of the compliance date with the Boiler MACT which
allowed them to burn coal until the end of January 2017. The record
indicates that no coal was burned after January of 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all sources that have CEMS installed, the MoDNR obtained the
actual hourly varying SO2 emissions from EPA's Clean Air
Market's Division (CAMD) and modeled those emissions.
    For sources without CEMS data, with the exception of Veolia, the
MoDNR determined each sources' highest actual annual emissions during
years 2016, 2017 and 2018. The MoDNR used the highest annual emissions
in the AERMOD input files for years 2016-2018. The MoDNR determined the
hourly emissions for each of the modeled source facilities by dividing
its highest annual emissions by the number of actual operational hours
to determine a representative operational emission rate. The MoDNR then
used this operational hourly emission rate as the emission input for
all hours of the year for the three-year period.\52\ Thus, the State
modeled an hourly emission rate even for hours where there were no
actual operations. As explained further below, this approach likely
models slightly higher total annual emissions than the actual annual
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ During the EPA's review of modeling files submitted with
the June 19, 2019 Jackson County clean data determination submittal,
it noticed that the files did not reflect the State's narrative of
using the highest annual emissions from 2016-2018. In February 2020,
the State submitted corrected emissions files. The June 2019 and the
February 2020 emission files are available in the docket to this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to determine that the modeled source inventory
was both created and characterized in accordance with the 2014
SO2 Guidance and the 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD. The
August 2016 Modeling TAD recommends utilizing hourly CEMS data in
modeling analyses for the purpose of designations or clean data
determinations. The MoDNR has done this for sources with CEMS. The
August 2016 Modeling TAD says that in the absence of CEMS data, simply
dividing the annual emissions by the number of hours in the year
(8,760) is not an accurate representation of actual emissions for
sources that experience emissions rate variability throughout the year
and should not be used. The EPA is proposing to determine that by using
the highest annual emissions from 2016-2018 for the sources without
CEMS, other than Veolia, and then dividing that number by the number of
operational hours the hourly emissions input is acceptable. The EPA is
proposing that the MoDNR adequately assessed the 2016 and 2017 Veolia
emissions on the few days when burning coal and that the
characterization of Veolia's 2016-2018 emissions is acceptable. Also,
as mentioned above in the ``What Are the Criteria to be Redesignated
from Unclassifiable to Attainment/Unclassifiable?'' section of this
document, the EPA has determined that it is appropriate to model a mix
of allowable and actual emissions.
v. Results
    The maximum modeled impact from the June 19, 2019 Jackson County
clean data determination modeling (with the February 2020 correction)
was 113.9 [mu]g/m\3\, or 43.5 ppb.\53\ The modeling scenario with the
EPA's adjusted background is 115.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or 44 ppb, which meets
the 1-hour standard of 75 ppb. The maximum modeled impact was located
to the southeast of Veolia, caused on the modeled days when coal was
combusted at Veolia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ MoDNR submitted modeling on February 24, 2020 to correct
the modeled actual emissions at threes sources (Audubon Materials,
Blue River Treatment Plant and KCPL Northeast Station). The February
24, 2020 modeling did not change the maximum modeled results from
the June 19, 2019 modeling submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes that the model results, along with monitored
values below the NAAQS at the Troost Street monitor for the same time
period, satisfies the criteria for clean data according to the EPA's
guidance. Certified and quality assured 2018 air quality monitoring
data is indicative of a substantial improvement in SO2 air
quality in the nonattainment area; the design value for 2016-2018 is 11
ppb. The MoDNR's monitoring data, technical modeling analysis and
supplemental information all support EPA's proposed determination,
consistent with its Clean Data Policy, that the nonattainment area has
clean data and warrants a determination of attainment.

C. Wyandotte County Redesignation Modeling

    As previously noted, the KDHE submitted the BPU March 2016 modeling
as an appendix to its January 2017 Round 3 designations submittal.
Because the Wyandotte County area was already designated in Round 2,
the EPA had no obligation to consider the KDHE's recommendation during
Round 3 and instead stated that it would consider the KDHE's request
for redesignation in a separate action. This section describes the
EPA's review of the BPU March 2016 modeling data submitted to the EPA
by the KDHE in January 2017 and the EPA's reasoning for proposing to
determine that the Wyandotte County area is attaining the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS and to redesignate the Wyandotte County area to
attainment/unclassifiable. Also as previously noted, the BPU March 2016
modeling was completed in accordance with the December 2013 Modeling
TAD.54 55
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ A side-by-side comparison of the December 2013 and August
2016 Modeling TADs is available in the docket to this rulemaking.
The August 2016 version identifies that the Data Requirements Rule
was finalized, and that the EPA proposed to revise Appendix W, among
other changes.
    \55\ The BPU March 2016 modeling was performed using AERMOD
version 15181 which was the most recent version of AERMOD when the
state initited the modeling analysis during Round 2. The EPA has
issued three updated versions of AERMOD (version 19191 is the
latest), but the model bug fixes and enhancements since the 15181
version are not expected to change the results of the modeling
conducted with AERMOD version 15181.

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

i.\.\Meteorological Data
    The BPU March 2016 modeling used AERMOD's meteorological data
preprocessor AERMET (version 14134) with 2012-2014 surface
meteorological data from the KC Airport (referred to as the Charles B.
Wheeler Downtown Airport in the modeling document) and upper air
meteorological data from the NWS upper-air balloon station, located in
Topeka, Kansas. Although appendix W, the 2014 SO2 Guidance
and the December 2013 Modeling TAD (as well as the August 2016 Modeling
TAD) suggest that a state use 5 years of meteorological data from a NWS
site (or at least one year of on-site meteorological data) for SIP
development, this redesignation is not a redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment, therefore no SIP was required from the
KDHE for maintenance. The Modeling TAD indicates that for designations
a minimum of three years of meteorological data should be used.
Redesignations from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable are a
factual determination of whether the area is attaining the NAAQS, much
like an initial designation. As such, the EPA believes utilization of 3
years of meteorological data from these sites is sufficient for this
analysis.
ii. Background Concentration
    Upon request from the KDHE, the BPU March 2016 modeling used a 1-
hour SO2 background concentration of 13 ppb. At the time of
the BPU model's development, the MoDNR adopted an attainment plan for
the Jackson County area (subsequently withdrawn from the EPA). In the
now-withdrawn attainment SIP, the MoDNR described its background
concentration analysis which it shared with the KDHE. In its background
concentration analysis, the MoDNR obtained 2010-2012 monitoring data
from the JFK monitor. The MoDNR ran back trajectories using a HYSPLIT
model for monitored values above 10 ppb, 15 ppb, and 20 ppb. From the
back-trajectory analysis, a sector with little to no influence from
Missouri or Kansas SO2 sources was chosen to represent
background concentrations; the sector with the least source influence
was at 180-200 degrees. Once a representative sector was a chosen, the
highest monitoring values from that sector were evaluated. The 2010-
2012 fourth high hourly monitored SO2 value in the
representative sector was 13 ppb. Therefore, a SO2
concentration of 13 ppb was used as the modeled background
concentration for the MoDNR's Jackson County SO2 area
planning purposes, was shared with the KDHE, and used in the BPU March
2016 modeling. A discussion of the background concentrations used in
the Jackson County CDD modeling and the BPU March 2016 modeling is
provided in the ``Connection to the Jackson County Clean Data
Modeling'' section of this document.
    The EPA proposes to determine that the background value of 13.0 ppb
is appropriate and comports with appendix W, the 2014 SO2
Guidance and the Modeling TAD.
iii. Source Characteristics
    The EPA reviewed the BPU March 2016 source characterization used in
its modeling demonstration, including source types, stack heights, and
stack exit temperatures and velocities. The EPA is proposing to
determine BPU's source characterization was consistent with the
recommendations of appendix W and the 2014 SO2 Guidance. BPU
modeled all stacks at their actual stack heights, following the 2014
SO2 Guidance, which says, ``Consistent with previous
SO2 modeling guidance (U.S. EPA, 1994) and section 6.2.2 of
Appendix W, for stacks with heights that are within the limits of Good
Engineering Practice (GEP), actual heights should be used in
modeling.''
iv. Emissions Data
    In the BPU March 2016 model, BPU-Nearman, KCP&L-Sibley EP5A, EP5B
and EP5C, and KCP&L-Hawthorn Unit 5 (EP6) were included using 2012-2014
CEMS data. Each of the IPL (Missouri City and Blue Valley) emission
points were modeled using their 2013 actual emissions. These 2013
actual emissions reflect coal combustion at IPL-Blue Valley and IPL-
Missouri City, and since IPL-Missouri City has shut down and IPL-Blue
Valley has switched to natural gas, the EPA proposes to find that the
modeled emissions rates based on coal is conservative compared to the
most recent three years of actual emissions from natural gas operations
and shutdown and can therefore be relied upon in the analysis.
    Table 3 provides annual SO2 emissions for the major
point sources in the area. Actual emissions have been reduced in 2018
at every major source compared to the 2012-2014 timeframe used in the
BPU 2016 modeling. SO2 emissions at these major point
sources are down 83 percent from the highest emission year of 2013
(28,241 tons per year) to 2018 (4,738 tons per year). In addition, 2013
actual emissions used for modeled emissions at IPL-Blue Valley and IPL-
Missouri City are the highest annual emissions at these two sources in
the 2012-2018 timeframe. These two sources reported zero SO2
emissions in 2018. Thus, EPA finds the modeled emissions from 2012-2014
for BPU-Nearman, KCP&L-Sibley EP5A, EP5B and EP5C, KCP&L-Hawthorn EP6
(Unit 5), and the 2013 emissions assuming coal combustion for IPL-Blue
Valley and shutdown of IPL-Missouri City acceptable.
    In the BPU March 2016 modeling, Veolia emission points EP1, EP2 and
EP3 were modeled at 0.50, 351.8 and 0.50 lbs/hr of SO2,
respectively. The modeled Veolia rates are conservative to the
permitted requirement to burn natural gas, and the 2016-2018 actual
emissions modeled in the Jackson County clean data determination
modeling. The EPA is proposing to determine that the emission rates
used in the BPU March 2016 modeling comport with the Modeling TAD.

  Table 3--Major Individual Point Source SO2 Emissions (tons per year) in Wyandotte County, Kansas, Jackson County, Missouri and Clay County, Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2012            2013            2014            2015            2016            2017            2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veolia..................................           6,702           7,934           7,782           7,343              25             175               1
Nearman.................................           4,612           4,928           5,333           4,763           2,439             904           1,023
Blue Valley.............................           1,295           1,487             998             229               1               0               0
Sibley..................................           6,095           6,218           4,847           7,630           3,604           4,162           2,616

Hawthorn................................           1,577           1,728           1,441           1,368           1,043           1,180           1,089
Quindaro................................           2,758           2,905           3,684             853              27               1               8
Missouri City...........................             684             741               0             723
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Connection to the Jackson County Clean Data Modeling
    A background value of 13 ppb was utilized in the BPU March 2016
modeling and an adjusted background value of 3.2 ppb was used in the
Jackson County CDD modeling. Although the background concentrations
were determined using the same analysis method (i.e., sector exclusion
analysis) the numbers are significantly different. The EPA has found
this is likely due to the difference in years used in the analysis,
2012-2014 in the BPU March 2016 modeling vs. 2016-2018 in the Jackson
County CDD modeling. The 2016-2018 years reflect a significant
reduction in SO2 emissions in both the Wyandotte and Jackson
County areas since 2012. Table 4 shows the total point source
SO2 emission reductions from 2012-2018.

                        Table 4--Point Source SO2 Emissions (tons per year) Wyandotte County, Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                             County               2012        2013        2014        2015        2016        2017        2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS......................................  Wyandotte.................       7,401       7,860       9,038       5,634       2,481         922       1,051
MO......................................  Jackson...................      19,115      19,762      16,307      19,673       4,832       5,686       4,282
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ..........................      26,516      27,622      25,345      25,308       7,313       6,608       5,333
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BPU March 2016 model had a receptor grid that included the
Jackson County area, as well as portions of Platte and Clay counties in
Missouri in addition to Wyandotte County, Kansas.
    The BPU March 2016 modeling included all the large SO2
emitters in Missouri, except for Veolia, at their actual emissions. In
some cases, these emissions were much higher than the more recent
actual emissions used by the MoDNR in its Jackson County clean data
determination modeling. For example, the BPU March 2016 modeling
included the IPL-Missouri City emission points at their 2013 actual
emissions, however that source has since shut down and, as such, they
were not included in the Jackson County clean data determination
modeling. BPU-Nearman was included in the BPU March 2016 modeling at
its 2012-2014 CEMS rate but was included at a much lower rate, 2016-
2018 CEMS rate, in the Jackson County clean data determination
modeling.
    As previously discussed in this document, during the Round 2
designations, the EPA found that because the BPU March 2016 modeling
included Veolia at emission rates that were neither federally
enforceable and in effect nor reflective of the facility's most recent
three years of actual emissions, it could not rely on the modeling to
designate the Wyandotte County area. Subsequently, Missouri issued
construction and operating permits to Veolia that limit the emission
points to burning natural gas. Therefore, the Veolia emission rates
used in the BPU March 2016 modeling are now higher than the maximum
emission rates of natural gas combustion and higher than the 2016-2018
actual emission modeled in the Jackson County clean data determination
modeling. These actual emissions included periods of time when Veolia
was still burning coal--a practice that is no longer permitted. A
comparison of the BPU March 2016 modeled emission rates and the Jackson
County clean data determination modeled emission rates is given in
table 5.

                     Table 5--Model Input Comparison
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Jackson County
          Model input            BPU March 2016 model       CDD model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AERMOD Version................  15181.................  18081
Meteorological Data...........  2012-2014.............  2016-2018
Background concentration......  13 ppb................  3.2 ppb.
BPU-Nearman...................  2012-2014 CEMS........  2016-2018 CEMS.
Veolia
    EP1.......................  0.5 lb/hr.............  = <0.12 lb/h.
    EP2.......................  351.8 lb/hr...........  = <0.30 lb/hr
                                                         \1\.
    EP3.......................  0.5 lb/hr.............  = <0.30 lb/hr.
IPL Missouri City
    EP5.......................  2013 actual 220.4 lb/   Shutdown.
                                 hr.
    EP6.......................  2013 actual 0.1 lb/hr.  Shutdown.
IPL Blue Valley
    EP3.......................  2013 actual 193.4 lb/   0.006 lb/hr.
                                 hr.
    EP4.......................  2013 actual 224.6 lb/   0.004 lb/hr.
                                 hr.
    EP5.......................  2013 actual 340.3 lb/   0.009 lb/hr.
                                 hr.
KCP&L Sibley

    EP5A......................  2012-2014 CEMS........  2016-2018 CEMS.
    EP5B......................  2012-2014 CEMS........  2016-2018 CEMS.
    EP5C......................  2012-2014 CEMS........  2016-2018 CEMS.
Hawthorn
    EP6.......................  2012-2014 CEMS........  2016-2018 CEMS.
Modeling Results..............  49.24 ppb.............  43.47 ppb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to this modeled actual SO2 emissions from natural gas,
  EP2 was also modeled with actual SO2 emissions for the days Boiler 8
  burned coal.

    With a higher background concentration, higher modeled emissions
from both Kansas and Missouri sources, the BPU March 2016 modeling
demonstrates that the Wyandotte County area is attaining the standard.
The BPU March 2016 modeling also demonstrates that the Wyandotte County
area is not contributing to a modeled violation of the NAAQS in the
nearby Jackson County area, which, as explained in III.g. ``What is the
EPA's Rationale for Proposing This Action?'', the EPA is proposing to
determine the Jackson County area is currently attaining the standard
based on Missouri's June 2019 clean data determination modeling
including the Veolia emission points at actual emissions from 2016-
2018.
vi. Results
    The maximum modeled impact from the BPU March 2016 model scenario,
with the 34 [mu]g/m\3\ (13 ppb) background included, is 163 [mu]g/m\3\
or 62 ppb which complies with the 1-hour standard of 75 ppb. This
maximum modeled concentration is located to the southeast of BPU-
Nearman in Wyandotte County, Kansas. The BPU March 2016 modeling as
well as the KDHE's monitoring data for the JFK monitoring location, the
MoDNR's monitoring data for the Troost monitoring location and the
MoDNR's Jackson County clean data determination modeling support the
EPA's proposed determination that the area does not contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS in the Jackson County area (which the MoDNR has
demonstrated is monitoring and modeling attainment of the standard) and
warrants a redesignation from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable.
    Note: Due to their large size, some or all modeling data files may
not be available in the docket (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. When promulgated, what are the effects of this action?

A. Jackson County, Missouri

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

B. Wyandotte County, Kansas

    If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change
the legal designation of Wyandotte County, found at 40 CFR part 81,
from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS. The KDHE's SIP obligations are unaffected by this
redesignation.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality
monitoring data and modeling and would, if finalized, result in the
suspension of certain Federal requirements and would not impose any
additional requirements.
    With regard to the redesignation portion of this action, under the
CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment/unclassifiable is an action
that affects the air quality designation status of geographical areas
and does not impose any regulatory requirements. For these reasons,
this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.

     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
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe
has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the action 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, Clean data
determination, Determination of attainment, Incorporation by reference,
Redesignation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
Dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: March 31, 2020.
James Gulliford,
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.  52.1343, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1343  Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.

* * * * *
    (b) Determination of attainment. EPA has determined, as of [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], that the
Jackson County 2010 SO2 nonattainment has attained the 2010
SO2 1-hr NAAQS. This determination suspends the requirements
for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress,
contingency measures, and other plan elements related to attainment of
the standards for as long as the area continues to meet the 2010
SO2 1-hr NAAQS.

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

0
3. 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
4. In Sec.  81.317, the table titled ``Kansas--2010 Sulfur Dioxide
NAAQS [Primary]'' is amended by revising the entry ``Wyandotte County,
KS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.317  Kansas.

* * * * *

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

                              * * * * * * *
Wyandotte County, KS..........  [Date of publication    Attainment/
                                 of the final rule in    Unclassifiable.
                                 the Federal
                                 Register], [Federal
                                 Register citation of
                                 the final rule].

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. 2020-07143 Filed 4-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P