3958 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

other information necessary to address 

the safety concerns regarding the 

notified use, FDA may determine that 

the FCN is no longer effective because 

there is no longer a basis to conclude 

that the intended use is safe. 

(2) Data or other information available 

to FDA demonstrate that the 

manufacturer or supplier specified in 

the FCN has stopped or intends to stop 

producing, supplying, or using a food 

contact substance for the intended use. 

Such data or other information includes 

but is not limited to: 

(i) A request from the manufacturer or 

supplier. 

(A) The manufacturer or supplier 

specified in the FCN may request in 

writing that FDA determine that an FCN 

is no longer effective on the basis that 

it has stopped producing, supplying, or 

using a food contact substance for the 

intended food contact use in the United 

States or that it intends to stop 

producing, supplying, or using a food 

contact substance for the intended food 

contact use in the United States by a 

specified date. FDA will notify the 

manufacturer or supplier whether FDA 

is granting the request. 

(B) If FDA grants the request, FDA 

may determine that the FCN is no longer 

effective on the basis that the 

manufacturer or supplier has stopped 

producing, supplying, or using a food 

contact substance for the intended use 

in the United States or that it intends to 

stop producing, supplying, or using a 

food contact substance for the intended 

food contact use in the United States by 

a specified date. When such a request is 

based on the intent to stop producing, 

supplying, or using a food contact 

substance for the intended food contact 

use in the United States at a future date, 

FDA will include in the notice 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section the date specified in the request 

as the compliance date by which the 

manufacturer or supplier will stop 

producing, supplying, or using the food 

contact substance for the intended food 

contact use in the United States. 

(ii) Other data or information 

available to FDA. 

(A) If other data or information 

available to FDA demonstrate that a 

food contact substance is no longer 

produced, supplied, or used for an 

intended food contact use in the United 

States, FDA will inform the affected 

manufacturer or supplier specified in 

the FCN, in writing. FDA will include 

a specified time period by which the 

manufacturer or supplier must provide 

FDA with data or other information that 

demonstrate that the manufacturer or 

supplier continues to produce, supply, 

or use a food contact substance for the 

intended use in the United States. 

(B) If the manufacturer or supplier 

fails, by the specified date, to provide 

data or other information that 

demonstrate that the manufacturer or 

supplier continues to produce, supply, 

or use a food contact substance for the 

intended use in the United States; or if 

the manufacturer or supplier confirms 

that it has stopped producing, 

supplying, or using the food contact 

substance for the intended food contact 

use in the United States, FDA may 

determine that the FCN is no longer 

effective. 

(3) The intended use of the food 

contact substance identified in the FCN 

is authorized by a food additive 

regulation. 

(i) FDA will inform the manufacturer 

or supplier specified in the FCN in 

writing that the intended use of the food 

contact substance identified in the FCN 

is authorized by a food additive 

regulation. FDA will include a specified 

time period by which the manufacturer 

or supplier must respond to FDA with 

data or other information about whether 

the intended use of the food contact 

substance is authorized by a food 

additive regulation. 

(ii) If a manufacturer or supplier fails, 

by the specified date, to supply data or 

other information that demonstrate that 

the intended use of the food contact 

substance identified in the FCN is not 

authorized by a food additive 

regulation, FDA may determine that the 

FCN is no longer effective on the basis 

that the intended use of the food contact 

substance is authorized under a food 

additive regulation. 

(4) The intended use of the food 

contact substance identified in the FCN 

is covered by a threshold of regulation 

exemption. 

(i) FDA will inform the manufacturer 

or supplier specified in the authorizing 

FCN in writing that the intended use of 

the food contact substance identified in 

the FCN is covered by a threshold of 

regulation exemption. FDA will include 

a specified time period by which the 

manufacturer or supplier must respond 

to FDA with data or other information 

about whether the intended use of the 

food contact substance is covered by a 

threshold of regulation exemption. 

(ii) If a manufacturer or supplier fails, 

by the specified date, to supply data or 

other information that demonstrate that 

the intended use of the food contact 

substance identified in the FCN is not 

covered by a threshold of regulation 

exemption, FDA may determine that the 

FCN is no longer effective on the basis 

that the intended use of the food contact 

substance is covered under a threshold 

of regulation exemption. 

(b) If FDA determines that an FCN is 

no longer effective, FDA will publish a 

notice of its determination in the 

Federal Register stating that a detailed 

summary of the basis for FDA’s 

determination that the FCN is no longer 

effective has been placed on public 

display and that copies are available 

upon request. If FDA determines it 

would be protective of public health, 

FDA may include a separate compliance 

date for the use of the food contact 

substance in food contact articles, 

including food contact substances that 

were produced, supplied, or used by the 

manufacturer or supplier before 

publication of the notice in the Federal 

Register or before the compliance date 

described in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) of 

this section. The date that the notice 

publishes in the Federal Register is the 

date on which the notification is no 

longer effective. FDA’s determination 

that an FCN is no longer effective is 

final agency action subject to judicial 

review. 

(c) FDA’s determination that an FCN 

is no longer effective does not preclude 

any manufacturer or supplier from 

submitting a new FCN for the same food 

contact substance, including for the 

same intended use, after FDA has 

determined that an FCN is no longer 

effective, unless the intended use of the 

food contact substance is authorized by 

a food additive regulation or covered by 

a threshold of regulation exemption. 

The new submission must be made 

under §§ 170.100 and 170.101. 

Dated: January 20, 2022. 

Janet Woodcock, 

Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01527 Filed 1–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0932; FRL–9461–01– 

R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Determination 

of Attainment by the Attainment Date 

for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine 

that the Muscatine sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

nonattainment area attained the 2010 1- 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3959 

hour SO2 primary national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) by the 

applicable attainment date of October 4, 

2018, based upon a weight-of-evidence 

analysis using available air quality 

information. Additional analysis of the 

attainment determination is provided in 

a Technical Support Document (TSD) 

included in the docket to this proposed 

rulemaking. This action, if finalized, 

will address the EPA’s obligation under 

a consent decree which establishes a 

deadline of March 31, 2022 for the EPA 

to determine under Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 179(c) whether the Muscatine 

SO2 nonattainment area attained the 

NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 

attainment date. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2021–0932 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: 

Jason Heitman, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7664; 

email address: heitman.jason@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Written Comments 

II. Background 

A. The 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

B. Designations, Classifications, and 

Attainment Dates for the 2010 SO2

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

III. Proposed Determination 

A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory 

Provisions 

B. Monitoring Network Considerations 

C. Data Considerations and Proposed 

Determination 

i. Emissions Information 

ii. Monitoring Data 

iii. Meteorology 

iv. Modeling Information 

v. Conclusion 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

V. Environmental Justice Concerns 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2021– 

0932, 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. Background 

A. The 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

Under section 109 of the CAA, the 

EPA has established primary and 

secondary NAAQS for certain pervasive 

air pollutants (referred to as ‘‘criteria 

pollutants’’) and conducts periodic 

reviews of the NAAQS to determine 

whether they should be revised or 

whether new NAAQS should be 

established. The primary NAAQS 

represent ambient air quality standards 

the attainment and maintenance of 

which the EPA has determined, 

including a margin of safety, are 

requisite to protect the public health. 

The secondary NAAQS represent 

ambient air quality standards the 

attainment and maintenance of which 

the EPA has determined are requisite to 

protect the public welfare from any 

known or anticipated adverse effects 

associated with the presence of such air 

pollutant in the ambient air. 

Under the CAA, the EPA must 

establish a NAAQS for SO2. SO2 is 

primarily released to the atmosphere 

through the burning of fossil fuels by 

power plants and other industrial 

facilities. SO2 is also emitted from 

industrial processes including metal 

extraction from ore and heavy 

equipment that burn fuel with a high 

sulfur content. Short-term exposure to 

SO2 can damage the human respiratory 

system and increase breathing 

difficulties. Small children and people 

with respiratory conditions, such as 

asthma, are more sensitive to the effects 

of SO2. Sulfur oxides at high 

concentrations can also react with 

compounds to form small particulates 

that can penetrate deeply into the lungs 

and cause health problems. 

The EPA first established primary SO2

standards in 1971 at 0.14 parts per 

million (ppm) over a 24-hour averaging 

period and 0.3 ppm over an annual 

averaging period (36 FR 8186, April 30, 

1971). In June 2010, the EPA revised the 

NAAQS for SO2 to provide increased 

protection of public health, providing 

for revocation of the 1971 primary 

annual and 24-hour SO2 standards for 

most areas of the country following area 

designations under the new NAAQS. 

The 2010 NAAQS is 75 parts per billion 

(ppb) (equivalent to 0.075 ppm) over a 

1-hour averaging period (75 FR 35520, 

June 22, 2010). A violation of the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS occurs when the 

annual 99th percentile of ambient daily 

maximum 1-hour average SO2

concentrations, averaged over a 3-year 

period, exceeds 75 ppb. 

B. Designations, Classifications, and 

Attainment Dates for the 2010 SO2

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

Following promulgation of any new 

or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required 

by CAA section 107(d) to designate 

areas throughout the nation as attaining 

or not attaining the NAAQS. 

On August 5, 2013, the EPA finalized 

its first round of designations for the 

2010 primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (78 

FR 47191). In the 2013 action, the EPA 

designated 29 areas in 16 states as 

nonattainment for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS, including a portion of 

Muscatine County in Iowa. The 

designation was based on air quality 

monitoring data from 2009–2011 

showing violations of the NAAQS. The 

EPA’s initial round of designations for 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS including the 

Muscatine nonattainment area (NAA) 

became effective on October 4, 2013. 

Pursuant to CAA sections 172(a)(2) and 

192(a), the maximum attainment date 

for the Muscatine NAA is October 4, 

2018, five years after the effective date 

of the final action designating the area 

as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3960 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA’s letter approving Iowa’s 2021 monitoring 

network plan dated December 2, 2021 is included 

in the docket for this action. 

III. Proposed Determination 

A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory 

Provisions 

Section 179(c)(1) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to determine whether a 

nonattainment area attained an 

applicable standard by the applicable 

attainment date based on the area’s air 

quality as of the attainment date. 

A determination of whether an area’s 

air quality meets applicable standards is 

generally based upon the most recent 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

data gathered at established state and 

local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in 

a nonattainment area and entered into 

the EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. Data from ambient air 

monitors operated by state and local 

agencies in compliance with the EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies 

annually certify that these data are 

accurate to the best of their knowledge. 

All data are reviewed to determine the 

area’s air quality status in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 50, appendix T (for 

SO2). In general, for SO2 EPA does not 

rely exclusively on monitoring data to 

determine whether the NAAQS is met 

unless it has been demonstrated that the 

monitors were appropriately sited to 

record expected maximum ambient 

concentrations of SO2 in an area. 

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 

50.17 and in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix T, the 2010 1-hour 

annual SO2 standard is met at an 

ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the design value is less than or 

equal to 75 ppb. Design values are 

calculated by computing the three-year 

average of the annual 99th percentile 

daily maximum 1-hour average 

concentrations. When calculating 1- 

hour primary standard design values, 

the calculated design values are 

rounded to the nearest whole number or 

1 ppb by convention. An SO2 1-hour 

primary standard design value is valid 

if it encompasses three consecutive 

calendar years of complete data. A year 

is considered complete when all four 

quarters are complete, and a quarter is 

complete when at least 75 percent of the 

sampling days are complete. A sampling 

day is considered complete if 75 percent 

of the hourly concentration values are 

reported; this includes data affected by 

exceptional events that have been 

approved for exclusion by the 

Administrator. 

B. Monitoring Network Considerations 

Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA 

requires states to establish and operate 

air monitoring networks to compile data 

on ambient air quality for all criteria 

pollutants. The EPA’s monitoring 

requirements are specified by regulation 

in 40 CFR part 58. These requirements 

are applicable to state, and where 

delegated, local air monitoring agencies 

that operate criteria pollutant monitors. 

In section 4.4 of appendix D to 40 

CFR part 58, the EPA specifies 

minimum monitoring requirements for 

SO2 to operate at SLAMS. SLAMS 

produce data that are eligible for 

comparison with the NAAQS, and 

therefore, the monitor must be an 

approved Federal reference method 

(FRM) or Federal equivalent method 

(FEM) monitor. 

The minimum number of required 

SO2 SLAMS is described in sections 

4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of appendix D to 40 CFR 

part 58. According to section 4.4.2, the 

minimum number of required SO2

monitoring sites is determined by the 

population weighted emissions index 

for each state’s core based statistical 

area. Section 4.4.3 describes additional 

monitors that may be required by an 

EPA regional administrator. 

Under 40 CFR 58.10, states are 

required to submit annual monitoring 

network plans (AMNP) for ambient air 

monitoring networks for approval by the 

EPA. Within the Muscatine NAA, the 

State is responsible for assuring that 

each monitoring site meets air quality 

monitoring requirements. Iowa submits 

an AMNP to the EPA that describes the 

various monitoring sites operated by the 

State. Each AMNP discusses the status 

of the air monitoring network as 

required under 40 CFR 58.10 and 

addresses the operation and 

maintenance of the air monitoring 

network in the previous year. The EPA 

regularly reviews these AMNPs for 

compliance with the applicable 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 

58. With the EPA’s approval of Iowa’s 

most recent AMNP, the State has met 

the applicable minimum monitoring 

requirements.1

The EPA also conducts regular 

‘‘technical systems audits’’ (TSAs) 

during which we review and inspect 

ambient air monitoring programs to 

assess compliance with applicable 

regulations concerning the collection, 

analysis, validation, and reporting of 

ambient air quality data. 

During the 2015–2017 data period, 

Iowa operated three SO2 SLAMS in the 

Muscatine SO2 NAA: Greenwood 

Cemetery (AQS ID 19–139–0016); High 

School East Campus (AQS ID 19–139– 

0019); and Musser Park (AQS ID 19– 

139–0020). 

C. Data Considerations and Proposed 

Determination 

CAA section 179(c)(1) requires the 

Agency to ‘‘determine, based on the 

area’s air quality as of the attainment 

date, whether the area attained the 

standard by that date.’’ The EPA first 

assessed what air quality information 

was available related to making a 

determination of attainment by the 

attainment date for the Muscatine area. 

The EPA chose to employ a weight-ofevidence approach for making this 

determination because the EPA does not 

have any analysis (including modeling) 

associated with the monitor siting to 

demonstrate that the monitors record 

maximum ambient SO2 concentrations 

in the NAA, nor does EPA have 

modeling of actual emissions to support 

a determination based on modeled 

ambient concentrations whether the 

area attained the NAAQS by the 

attainment date. The available modeling 

of permitted allowable emissions in the 

area, as discussed later in this 

document, does not on its own provide 

a basis for determining whether the area 

attained by the attainment date. Thus, 

EPA relied upon SO2 emissions data 

and trends, relevant air monitoring data 

and trends, SO2 monitoring data 

incorporated with local meteorological 

data, as well as available modeling 

information in order to make its 

determination under CAA section 

179(c)(1). The EPA believes our analysis 

of multiple types of air-quality related 

information to support our 

determination is consistent with section 

179(c)(1)’s direction to determine the 

area’s air quality as of the attainment 

date. Further detail on EPA’s weight-ofevidence analysis is contained in the 

technical support document (TSD) 

included in the docket for this action. 

i. Emissions Information 

There are four facilities that emit or 

have historically emitted SO2 located in 

or near the Muscatine NAA. Three are 

located within the nonattainment area— 

Grain Processing Corporation (GPC), 

Muscatine Power and Water (MPW), 

and Monsanto. Louisa Generating 

Station (LGS) is located south of the 

nonattainment area. Table 1 provides 

the annual emissions from 2011–2020 

from each individual source along with 

the total combined emissions among the 

four facilities. In the 2011–2015 

timeframe, GPC was the largest SO2

source in the Muscatine area, with the 

majority of SO2 emissions attributed to 

GPC’s boilers using coal. A fuel switch 

at GPC’s coal-fired boilers to natural gas 

occurred on July 14, 2015, and this 

change led to large reductions of SO2


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3961 

2EPA relied on the DRR modeling submitted by 

Iowa to designate Louisa County, containing LGS, 

as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS in December 2017 (83 FR 1098). 

3The 1-hour SO2 modeling rate used for LGS was 

developed from the current 30-day rolling permit 

limit and actual emissions following the approach 

outlined in the EPA’s 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour 

SO2 Nonattainment Area State Implementation 

Plans. 

4https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. 

emissions at GPC. Prior to 2018, 

Monsanto was fueled primarily by coal, 

with SO2 emissions associated with its 

main boiler. As required by a 

construction permit, Monsanto 

converted its coal-fired boiler to use 

only natural gas in 2018 which 

eliminated nearly all SO2 emissions 

from Monsanto. 

The EPA first evaluated annual SO2

emissions trends within the Muscatine 

nonattainment area. By 2017, total 

annual emissions in the Muscatine area 

had dropped approximately 72% from 

2014 (24,181 tons per year (tpy) in 2014 

to 6,781 tpy in 2017). Much of the 

reduction in emissions can be attributed 

to GPC’s fuel conversion to natural gas 

in July of 2015, evident by the more 

than 50% reduction in annual SO2

emissions at GPC from 2014 (13,075 tpy) 

to 2015 (6,191 tpy) and further 

reductions to below 200 tpy in 2016 and 

2017. Overall, GPC’s annual SO2

emissions were reduced by 98.7% from 

2014 to 2017. 

In addition to emissions decreases 

within the nonattainment area, the EPA 

also looked at emissions at LGS, the 

nearby source located outside the 

nonattainment area. In the Louisa 

County Data Requirements Rule (DRR) 

modeling,2 Iowa modeled LGS using its 

permitted allowable rate of 4,270.89 lbs/ 

hour,3 which would correspond to an 

annual total of 18,706 tpy. Actual 

annual emissions at LGS during the 

2015–2017 timeframe ranged between 

5,129 tpy and 6,098 tpy, significantly 

below the annual total of 18,706 tpy that 

corresponded with modeled attainment. 

In addition, the actual maximum hourly 

emission rate at LGS since 2011, as 

reported to EPA Clean Air Markets 

Division (CAMD) database 4 is 4,014.7 

lb/hr, which is also below the 1-hour 

modeled emission rate. 

TABLE 1—SO2 EMISSIONS (TONS) FROM 2011 TO 2019 FOR SOURCES WITHIN AND NEARBY THE MUSCATINE

NONATTAINMENT AREA. EMISSIONS ARE FROM EPA’S NATIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY (NEI) 

Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

GPC ............................ 11,970 11,640 12,761 13,075 6,191 187 173 84 89 

MPW ........................... 2,374 2,015 2,169 1,821 1,714 1,769 1,167 1,458 1,715 

Monsanto .................... 537 543 469 502 402 349 208 ∼0 ∼0 

Louisa .................. 7,306 8,743 8,285 8,783 6,098 5,129 5,233 7,332 5,286 

Total ............. 22,187 22,941 23,684 24,181 14,405 7,434 6,781 8,874 7,090 

EPA’s evaluation of emissions at 

sources within and outside of the 

nonattainment area indicate significant 

reductions in emissions in the 2015– 

2017 timeframe compared to pre-2015 

emissions. 

ii. Monitoring Data 

Under 40 CFR 58.15, monitoring 

agencies must certify, on an annual 

basis, data collected by FRM or FEMs at 

all SLAMS, including special purpose 

monitors, that meet EPA quality 

assurance requirements. In doing so, 

monitoring agencies must certify that 

the previous year of ambient 

concentration and quality assurance 

data are completely submitted to AQS 

and that the ambient concentration data 

are accurate to the best of their 

knowledge. Iowa annually certifies that 

the data it submits to AQS are quality 

assured, including data collected at 

monitoring sites in the Muscatine SO2

NAA. 

For the Muscatine SO2 NAA the 

applicable attainment date is October 4, 

2018. In accordance with appendix T to 

40 CFR part 50, where determinations of 

SO2 NAAQS compliance may be made 

based on well-sited air quality monitors, 

compliance with the NAAQS is based 

on three consecutive calendar years of 

data. The three calendar year period 

preceding the attainment date for the 

Muscatine SO2 NAA is January 1, 2015- 

December 31, 2017. 

The 3-year design values of 1-hour 

SO2 from 2011 through 2020 for the 

three Muscatine area monitors are 

provided in Table 2 and the annual 99th 

percentile of 1-hour SO2 concentrations 

are shown in Table 3. All monitor 

violations occur before the 2015–2017 

timeframe, with all three monitors 

showing violations from 2011–2016. No 

monitor violation of the 3-year design 

value has occurred since 2016, with the 

largest of the three 2015–2017 1-hour 

SO2 design values of 65 ppb at the 

Musser Park site. The trends indicated 

in the monitored design values are 

consistent with EPA’s evaluation of the 

emissions trends discussed above. As 

emission reductions were implemented 

at the sources in the nonattainment area, 

SO2 concentrations recorded at the 

area’s air quality monitors decreased. 

Specifically, coal combustion at GPC 

ceased in mid-2015 and coal 

combustion at Monsanto ceased in late 

2017. Significant decreases in 1-hour 

daily maximum SO2 concentrations at 

the air quality monitors are consistent 

with that timeline. While the most 

recent complete and quality-assured 

design values (2018–2020) for the 

Greenwood Cemetery, High School East 

Campus, and Musser Park sites (15, 18, 

and 20 ppb, respectively) were recorded 

after the area’s attainment date, they 

indicate the effectiveness of the area’s 

control measures. These design values 

are no greater than 27% of the level of 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUES (ppb) FOR THE 2010 1-HOUR SO2 NAAQS FOR THE MUSCATINE MONITORING SITES

Site name 2011–2013 2012–2014 2013–2015 2014–2016 2015–2017 2016–2018 2017–2019 2018–2020 

Greenwood Cemetery (19–139– 

0016) ............................................ .................. 101 97 77 45 20 17 15 

High School E Campus (19–139– 

0019) ............................................ .................. .................. 128 84 42 22 21 18 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I I I I I I I I 
3962 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5The final approval action was challenged in the 

D.C. Cir. on January 15, 2021 and was placed in 

abeyance on February 3, 2021. Sierra Club v. EPA, 

No. 21–1022 (D.C. Cir.). EPA filed an unopposed 

motion to the court for a voluntary remand without 

vacatur and indicated that EPA would take a final 

reconsideration action no later than December 1, 

2023. The D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s motion on 

December 17, 2021. 

6The permits containing the emissions limits also 

contain exemptions for periods of startup, 

shutdown, and cleaning. 

7Monsanto was modeled with actual emissions 

for the Louisa County DRR modeling 

demonstration. 

TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUES (ppb) FOR THE 2010 1-HOUR SO2 NAAQS FOR THE MUSCATINE MONITORING SITES— 

Continued 

Site name 2011–2013 2012–2014 2013–2015 2014–2016 2015–2017 2016–2018 2017–2019 2018–2020 

Musser Park (19–139–0020) ........... 217 194 158 113 65 34 25 20 

TABLE 3—ANNUAL 99TH PERCENTILE OF 1-HOUR DAILY MAXIMUM SO2 CONCENTRATIONS (ppb) MUSCATINE MONITORING

SITES

Site name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

Greenwood Cemetery (19–139– 

0016) ............................................ 84 117 91 24 20 15 16 14 

High School E Campus (19–139– 

0019) ............................................ 147 161 75 30 20 16 25 13 

Musser Park (19–139–0020) ........... 179 179 116 45 35 24 16 20 

iii. Meteorology 

The EPA does not have conclusive 

evidence to support that the monitors 

are sited in the area of maximum 

ambient SO2 concentrations. EPA would 

typically rely on the siting analysis 

performed to originally site the monitors 

or modeling of actual emissions to 

demonstrate the monitors are sited in 

the area of maximum concentrations. 

There is not a specific analysis 

associated with the siting of the 

monitors nor does EPA have access to 

modeling of actual emissions for sources 

in or near the nonattainment area to 

make such a determination. In the 

absence of that information, EPA has 

also evaluated local meteorology along 

with the monitored SO2 values to 

evaluate the likelihood of maximum 

ambient concentrations occurring in 

locations that the monitors could not 

record. Hourly wind speeds and 

direction were collected from the 

Muscatine Airport, which is located 

approximately 8 kilometers southwest 

of GPC and the Musser Park and High 

School SO2 monitors. The hourly winds 

were combined into a dataset with the 

coinciding one hour monitored SO2

concentrations and plotted using SO2

pollution roses. This analysis provides 

information to help determine from 

where (and potentially what source) the 

monitored impacts were coming. In 

summary, the monitors appear to be 

positioned in downwind areas of 

relatively high impacts as indicated by 

pollution roses. Full details of the local 

meteorology analysis and pollution 

roses are provided in the TSD. 

iv. Modeling Information 

The EPA considered relying on two 

separate modeling demonstrations for 

the Muscatine area. Modeling performed 

by the State of Iowa for purposes of the 

control strategy and attainment 

demonstration for the area was 

submitted to EPA in May 2016. EPA 

later approved the attainment plan and 

modeling in a final action in November 

2020 (85 FR 73218). That final action 

has since been remanded without 

vacatur to EPA.5 The State of Iowa also 

submitted modeling pursuant to the SO2

DRR for LGS in January 2017. This DRR 

modeling was the basis for EPA’s Round 

3 designation of Attainment/ 

Unclassifiable for Louisa County 

(containing LGS) in December 2017 (83 

FR 1098). Both sets of modeling rely on 

permitted allowable emissions rates 6 7

that were in place by the October 4, 

2018, attainment date and were 

previously found by EPA to demonstrate 

attainment of the NAAQS as noted 

above. However, the EPA is not relying 

on Iowa’s attainment demonstration 

modeling as a basis for our proposed 

determination, because that modeling 

may be revisited as part of the EPA’s 

reconsideration action per the D.C. 

Circuit’s remand of EPA’s approval of 

Iowa’s attainment plan. Rather, as 

discussed above, we are relying on the 

DRR modeling to provide a comparison 

between the much higher modeled 

emission rates at the sources and the 

actual recorded emissions to provide 

additional evidence that the entire area 

was attaining the NAAQs as of October 

4, 2018. 

v. Conclusion 

In sum, and as discussed further in 

the TSD, we propose to find that the 

weight of the available evidence 

indicates that the Muscatine area 

attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 

the 2015–2017 timeframe by the October 

4, 2018 attainment date. Specifically, 

the significant reductions in emissions 

during the relevant time period from 

sources within the nonattainment area 

and a nearby source outside the 

nonattainment area, coupled with 

corresponding decreased monitored SO2

concentrations within the 

nonattainment area during that same 

time period lead us to our proposed 

determination that the area attained by 

its attainment date. Local meteorological 

data help confirm that the air quality 

monitors are unlikely to have missed 

high concentrations, and the available 

modeling information and emissions 

data of the nearby LGS source (which 

may not be reflected in the air quality 

monitoring data from within the 

nonattainment area) also supports the 

EPA’s determination, as actual historical 

emissions from that source during the 

relevant time period were significantly 

below the emissions that were modeled 

to be consistent with attainment of the 

NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

The EPA conducted a weight-ofevidence analysis, described in detail 

above and in the TSD, to determine if 

the Muscatine SO2 nonattainment area 

attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

by the October 4, 2018 attainment date 

by evaluating all available technical 

information and data relevant to the SO2

air quality (e.g., emissions, monitoring, 

meteorological data, and modeling) in 

the Muscatine, Iowa, area. Based on the 

analysis and information presented in 

this document and the TSD contained in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3963 

8Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Regan, 

No. 3:20–cv–05436–EMC (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2021). 

the docket for this action, the EPA 

proposes to determine that the 

Muscatine SO2 NAA attained the 2010 

1-hour SO2 standard by the applicable 

attainment date of October 4, 2018, 

consistent with CAA section 179(c)(1). 

In addition, this action, if finalized, 

will address EPA’s obligation under a 

consent decree in Center for Biological 

Diversity, et al. v. Regan, which 

establishes a deadline of March 31, 2022 

for the EPA to determine under CAA 

section 179(c) whether the Muscatine 

County SO2 nonattainment area attained 

the NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 

attainment date.8

This proposed action does not 

constitute a redesignation of the 

Muscatine SO2 NAA to attainment for 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS under 

CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have 

not yet approved a maintenance plan for 

the area as meeting the requirements of 

section 175A of the CAA and have not 

determined that the area has met the 

other CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) 

requirements for redesignation. The 

classification and designation status in 

40 CFR part 81 will remain 

nonattainment until the EPA has 

determined that Iowa has met the CAA 

requirements for redesignation to 

attainment for the Muscatine SO2 NAA. 

This is a proposed action and we are 

soliciting comments on this proposed 

action. Final rulemaking will occur after 

consideration of any comments. 

V. Environmental Justice Concerns 

When the EPA establishes a new or 

revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the 

EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as 

either nonattainment, attainment, or 

unclassifiable. Area designations 

address environmental justice concerns 

by ensuring that the public is properly 

informed about the air quality in an 

area. 

The EPA utilized the EJSCREEN tool 

to evaluate environmental and 

demographic indicators within the area. 

The tool outputs report is contained in 

the docket for this action. While the 

EPA’s EJSCREEN tool demonstrates that 

demographic indicators are consistent 

or lower than national averages, there 

are vulnerable populations in the area 

including low-income populations and 

persons over 64 years of age. 

This action addresses EPA’s 

determination, as required by the CAA, 

of whether the Muscatine County, Iowa, 

area attained the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS by the relevant attainment date. 

This action proposes to determine an 

area has attained the NAAQS by the 

relevant attainment date, but it does not 

change the geographic status of the area 

nor does it impose additional or modify 

existing requirements on sources. Based 

on the information presented in this 

document and the associated technical 

support document, the EPA is proposing 

to determine that the air quality in the 

Muscatine County area is attaining the 

NAAQS. For these reasons, this 

proposed action does not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority populations, low-income 

populations and/or indigenous peoples. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to determine an 

area has attained the NAAQS by the 

relevant attainment date and does not 

impose additional or modify existing 

requirements. For that reason, this 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTA) because this 

rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• This action does not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority populations, low-income 

populations and/or indigenous peoples, 

as specified in Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 

basis for this determination is contained 

in section V of this action, 

‘‘Environmental Justice Concerns.’’ 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: January 20, 2022. 

Meghan A. McCollister, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR part 52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart Q—Iowa 

■ 2. Revise § 52.834 to read as follows: 

§ 52.834 Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide. 

(a) Approval. On April 21, 1997, the 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

(IDNR) submitted a maintenance plan 

and redesignation request for the 

Muscatine County nonattainment area 

for the 1971 SO2 national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). The 

maintenance plan and redesignation 

request satisfy all applicable 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

(b) Determination of attainment by the 

attainment date. As of [date 30 days 

after date of publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register], the EPA has 

determined that the Muscatine, Iowa, 

SO2 nonattainment area has attained the 

2010 1-hour SO2 primary NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of October 4, 

2018. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01497 Filed 1–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS