This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

31645 

Vol. 86, No. 113 

Tuesday, June 15, 2021 

1 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0365; FRL–10024– 

81–Region 7] 

Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for 

the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Standard 

for Kansas and Nebraska 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submissions from Kansas and Nebraska 

addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act) interstate transport SIP 

requirements for the 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). These 

submissions address the requirement 

that each SIP contain adequate 

provisions prohibiting air emissions that 

will have certain adverse air quality 

effects in other states. The EPA is 

proposing to approve portions of these 

infrastructure SIPs for the 

aforementioned states as containing 

adequate provisions to ensure that air 

emissions in the states will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in 

any other state. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 15, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0365. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Atmospheric Programs Section, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 

Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 

66219. The EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ashley Keas, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

(913) 551–7629, or by email at 

keas.ashley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Written Comments 

II. Background 

A. Infrastructure SIPs 

B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations 

III. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2

Interstate Transport SIPs 

IV. States’ Submissions and the EPA’s 

Analysis 

A. Kansas 

1. State’s Analysis 

2. The EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation 

3. The EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation 

B. Nebraska 

1. State’s Analysis 

2. The EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation 

3. The EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation 

V. Requirements for Approval of a SIP 

Revision 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2021– 

0365 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. Infrastructure SIPs 

On June 2, 2010, the EPA established 

a new primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 

parts per billion (ppb), based on a threeyear average of the annual 99th 

percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations.1 The CAA requires 

states to submit, within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, SIPs meeting the applicable 

‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2). One of these 

applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to 

contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to 

prohibit certain adverse air quality 

effects on neighboring states due to 

interstate transport of pollution. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four 

distinct components, commonly 

referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that must be 

addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions that prohibit any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and 

from interfering with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). 

The third and fourth prongs, which are 

codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

require SIPs to contain adequate 

provisions that prohibit emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

another state (prong 3) or from 

interfering with measures to protect 

visibility in another state (prong 4). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31646 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

2While designations may provide useful 

information for purposes of analyzing transport, the 

EPA notes that designations themselves are not 

dispositive of whether or not upwind emissions are 

impacting areas in downwind states. The EPA has 

consistently taken the position that CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D) requires elimination of significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance in 

other states, and this analysis is not limited to 

designated nonattainment areas. Nor must 

designations for nonattainment areas have first 

occurred before states or the EPA can act under 

section 110(a)(2)(D). See e.g., Clean Air Interstate 

Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211 (Aug. 

8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from New 

Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland 

Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (Nov. 7, 2011) 

(finding facility in violation of the prohibitions of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of 

designations for that standard). 3The term ‘‘round’’ in this instance refers to 

which ‘‘round of designations.’’ 

4EPA and state documents and public comments 

related to the round 2 final designations are in the 

docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2014–0464 and at the EPA’s website for 

SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfurdioxide-designations. 

5EPA and state documents and public comments 

related to round 3 final designations are in the 

docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2017–0003 and at the EPA’s website for 

SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfurdioxide-designations. 

6EPA and state documents and public comments 

related to round 4 final designations are in the 

docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2020–0037 and at the EPA’s website for 

SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfurdioxide-designations. 

7The Round 4 2010 SO2 NAAQS designations 

action was signed by then EPA Administrator, 

Andrew Wheeler, on December 21, 2020, pursuant 

to a court-ordered deadline of December 31, 2020. 

For administrative purposes only, and in 

compliance with requirements of the Office of the 

Federal Register, Acting Administrator Jane Nishida 

re-signed the same action on March 10, 2021 for 

publication in the Federal Register. 

8For the definition of spatial scales for SO2, 

please see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4 

(‘‘Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria’’). For further 

discussion on how the EPA is applying these 

definitions with respect to interstate transport of 

SO2, see the EPA’s proposal on Connecticut’s SO2

transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8, 

2017). 

9This proposed approval action is based on the 

information contained in the administrative record 

for this action and does not prejudge any other 

future EPA action that may make other 

determinations regarding any of the subject state’s 

air quality status. Any such future actions, such as 

area designations under any NAAQS, will be based 

on their own administrative records and the EPA’s 

analyses of information that becomes available at 

those times. Future available information may 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the prong 1 and prong 2 

portions of infrastructure SIP 

submissions submitted by Kansas on 

April 7, 2020, and Nebraska on October 

27, 2020, as demonstrating that the SIP 

contains adequate provisions to ensure 

that air emissions from sources in these 

states will not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in 

any other state or each other. All other 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for these SIP submissions 

are addressed in separate rulemakings. 

B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS 

Designations 

In this action, the EPA has considered 

information from the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS designations process, as 

discussed in more detail in Section IV 

of this document. For this reason, a brief 

summary of the EPA’s designations 

process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

is included here.2 All technical support 

documents referenced throughout this 

document are also included in the 

docket for this action. 

After the EPA establishes a new or 

revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to 

designate areas as ‘‘nonattainment,’’ 

‘‘attainment,’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable,’’ 

pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the 

CAA. The process for designating areas 

following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS is contained in section 

107(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires 

the EPA to complete the initial 

designations process within two years of 

promulgating a new or revised standard. 

If the Administrator has insufficient 

information to make these designations 

by that deadline, the EPA has the 

authority to extend the deadline for 

completing designations by up to one 

year. 

The EPA Administrator signed the 

first round of designations (‘‘round 1’’) 3

for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on July 

25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16 

states as nonattainment for the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 

(August 5, 2013). The EPA 

Administrator signed Federal Register 

documents for round 2 designations 4 on 

June 30, 2016 (81 FR 45039 (July 12, 

2016)), and on November 29, 2016 (81 

FR 89870 (December 13, 2016)), round 

3 designations 5 on December 21, 2017 

(83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018)), and 

round 4 designations 6 on December 21, 

2020 (86 FR 16055 (March 26, 2021)) 

and on April 8, 2021 (86 FR 19576 

(April 14, 2021)).7

At the time of this proposed action, 

there are no nonattainment areas for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Kansas or 

Nebraska. There are two areas 

designated as unclassifiable, one in 

Kansas and one in Nebraska, the 

remaining areas in these states are 

designated as attainment/unclassifiable. 

III. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 

SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs 

Although SO2 is emitted from a 

similar universe of point and nonpoint 

sources, interstate transport of SO2 is 

unlike the transport of fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) or ozone, in that SO2 is 

not a regional pollutant and does not 

commonly contribute to widespread 

nonattainment over a large (and often 

multi-state) area. The transport of SO2 is 

more analogous to the transport of lead 

(Pb) because its physical properties 

result in localized pollutant impacts 

very near the emissions source. 

However, ambient concentrations of SO2

do not decrease as quickly with distance 

from the source as Pb because of the 

physical properties and typical release 

heights of SO2. Emissions of SO2 travel 

farther and have wider ranging impacts 

than emissions of Pb but do not travel 

far enough to be treated in a manner 

similar to ozone or PM2.5. The 

approaches that the EPA has adopted for 

ozone or PM2.5 transport are too 

regionally focused and the approach for 

Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed 

to the source. SO2 transport is therefore 

a unique case and requires a different 

approach. 

Given the physical properties of SO2, 

the EPA selected the ‘‘urban scale’’—a 

spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to 

50 kilometers (km) from point sources— 

given the usefulness of that range in 

assessing trends in both area-wide air 

quality and the effectiveness of largescale pollution control strategies at such 

point sources.8 The EPA’s selection of 

this transport distance for SO2 is based 

upon 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, 

section 4.4.4(4) ‘‘Urban scale,’’ which 

states that measurements in this scale 

would be used to estimate SO2

concentrations over large portions of an 

urban area with dimensions from four to 

50 km. The American Meteorological 

Society/Environmental Protection 

Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) is 

the EPA’s preferred modeling platform 

for regulatory purposes for near-field 

dispersion of emissions for distances up 

to 50 km. See appendix W of 40 CFR 

part 51. As such, the EPA utilized an 

assessment up to 50 km from point 

sources in order to assess trends in areawide air quality that might impact 

downwind states. 

As discussed in Section IV of this 

proposed action, the EPA first reviewed 

each state’s analysis to assess how the 

state evaluated the transport of SO2 to 

other states, the types of information 

used in the analysis and the conclusions 

drawn by the state. The EPA then 

conducted a weight of evidence 

analysis, including review of each 

state’s submission and other available 

information, including air quality, 

emission sources and emission trends 

within the state and in bordering states 

to which it could potentially contribute 

or interfere.9


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31647 

include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and 

modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the EPA’s 

SO2 Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 

21, 2015) and information submitted to the EPA by 

states, air agencies, and third party stakeholders 

such as citizen groups and industry representatives. 

10This emissions trends information was derived 

from the EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data. 

IV. States’ Submissions and EPA’s 

Analysis 

In this section, we provide an 

overview of each state’s 2010 SO2

transport analysis, as well as the EPA’s 

evaluation of prongs 1 and 2 for each 

state. Table 1 shows emission trends for 

the states addressed in this document 

along with their neighboring states.10

Table 2 shows ambient air monitoring 

data for monitors located within 50 km 

of the borders of either Kansas or 

Nebraska. Table 3 shows emissions 

trends for sources in Kansas and 

Nebraska emitting over 100 tons per 

year (tpy) located within 50 km of the 

border with another state. Tables 1, 2 

and 3 will be referenced as part of the 

EPA’s analysis for each state. 

TABLE 1—STATEWIDE SO2 EMISSION TRENDS

[In tons per year] 

State 2000 2005 2010 2015 2019 

SO2

reduction, 

2000–2019 

(%) 

Colorado ................................................... 115,122 80,468 60,459 28,860 17,045 85 

Iowa .......................................................... 265,005 222,419 142,738 84,932 64,294 76 

Kansas ..................................................... 148,416 199,006 80,267 36,828 24,855 83 

Missouri .................................................... 401,287 425,167 321,059 158,998 110,888 72 

Nebraska .................................................. 86,894 121,785 77,898 63,237 51,886 40 

Oklahoma ................................................. 145,862 169,464 136,348 99,095 45,996 68 

South Dakota ........................................... 41,120 28,579 16,202 11,975 5,093 88 

Wyoming .................................................. 141,439 122,453 91,022 53,335 42,191 70 

TABLE 2—SO2 MONITOR VALUES WITHIN 50 km OF THE NEBRASKA OR KANSAS BORDER

State/area Site ID 

Distance to 

Kansas border 

(km) * 

(nearest state listed 

for monitors in 

Kansas) 

Distance to 

Nebraska border 

(km) * 

(nearest state listed 

for monitors in 

Nebraska) 

2017–2019 

design value 

(ppb) 11

South Dakota/Sioux City ................................................................. 461270001 305 ......................... 10 ........................... 3 

Kansas/Wyandotte County .............................................................. 202090021 2 (Missouri) ............ 114 ......................... 6 

Nebraska/Omaha ............................................................................ 310550053 147 ......................... 0.5 (Iowa) ............... 41 

Nebraska/Omaha ............................................................................ 310550019 138 ......................... 4.5 (Iowa) ............... 24 

Nebraska/Omaha ............................................................................ 310550057 146 ......................... 1.5 (Iowa) ............... 34 

Missouri/Jackson County ................................................................ 290950034 3 ............................. 118 ......................... 10 

Oklahoma/Ponca City ..................................................................... 400710604 33 ........................... 367 ......................... 28 

Oklahoma/Enid ................................................................................ 400470555 54 ........................... 387 ......................... 48 

* All distances throughout this document are approximations. 

TABLE 3—SO2 EMISSION TRENDS FOR KANSAS AND NEBRASKA SOURCES WITHIN 50 km OF A STATE BORDER

State/county Facility name EIS facility 

ID 

Distance to 

nearest state 

(km) 

SO2 emissions (tons) % change 

2011 2014 2017 2019 2011–2019 

Kansas/Johnson ........ AGC Flat Glass ........................ 4538011 18, Missouri ........ 243.83 154.51 157.42 133.06 ¥45.43 

Kansas/Linn ............... Evergy—La Cygne ................... 5367811 3, Missouri .......... 17,872.15 12,639.08 619.07 719.98 ¥95.97 

Kansas/Douglas ........ Evergy—Lawrence ................... 4827111 44, Missouri ........ 2,792.76 1,845.46 295.11 471.72 ¥83.11 

Kansas/Wyandotte .... Kansas City BPU—Nearman ... 4633811 0.5, Missouri ....... 5,989.47 5,332.61 904.01 1,203.00 ¥79.91 

Nebraska/Otoe .......... Nebraska City Station .............. 7303711 0.3, Iowa ............. 17,334.65 16,134.40 15,950.20 10,386.51 ¥40.08 

Nebraska/Douglas ..... North Omaha Station ............... 6732411 0.3, Iowa ............. 14,069.34 11,244.90 7,896.85 5,792.82 ¥58.83 

Nebraska/Cass .......... Ash Grove Cement Company .. 7287311 24, Iowa .............. 1,067.12 1,250.77 694.12 681.44 ¥36.14 

Nebraska/Dodge ........ Lon D Wright Power Plant ....... 7766111 33, Iowa .............. 1,399.76 2,231.52 926.23 985.08 ¥29.63 

Nebraska/Kimball ...... Clean Harbors Environmental 

Services.

7768011 17, Colorado ....... 0.62 222.81 221.36 205.93 12 33114.1 

Nebraska/Scotts Bluff Western Sugar Cooperative ..... 7767911 35, Wyoming ...... 151.66 149.08 176.80 144.71 ¥4.58 

Nebraska/Douglas ..... Douglas County Recycling 

Landfill.

7699311 25, Iowa .............. 111.98 102.53 131.04 164.59 46.98 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31648 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

11 Data retrieved from the EPA’s https://

www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-designvalues#report. 

12The EPA notes that emissions for Clean Harbors 

Environmental Services decreased by 7.5% from 

2014 to 2019. 

13See Kansas’ SO2 interstate transport SIP as 

submitted in January 2020 in the docket for this 

action. 

14 Id. 

15State monitoring networks must meet the 

minimum monitoring requirements contained in 

appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. Specifically, section 

4.4 of appendix D outlines the minimum 

monitoring requirements for SO2 monitoring based 

on population weighted emissions. Monitors sited 

to meet the minimum monitoring requirements are 

sited for a number of reasons (e.g. measuring a 

source’s maximum contribution, measuring 

background concentrations, monitoring population 

exposure, etc.) and may not necessarily capture 

maximum impacts from specific sources. However, 

data from these monitors may still provide useful 

evidence in the context of interstate transport. 

16See the EPA’s Technical Support Document for 

its Intended Round 2 Designations for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS for Kansas available at: https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ 

documents/ks-epa-tsd-r2.pdf and the EPA’s 

Technical Support Document for its Final Round 2 

Designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for Kansas 

available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

A. Kansas 

1. State’s Analysis 

In its SIP submittal, Kansas conducted 

a weight of evidence analysis to 

examine whether SO2 emissions from 

Kansas adversely affect attainment or 

maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in 

downwind states.13 Kansas evaluated 

potential air quality impacts on areas 

outside the state through an assessment 

of whether SO2 emissions from sources 

located within 50 km of Kansas’ borders 

may have associated interstate transport 

impacts. The State’s analysis included 

SO2 emissions information in the state, 

with specific focus on sources and 

counties located within 50 km of 

Kansas’ borders. Of the 11 facilities in 

Kansas with SO2 emissions greater than 

100 tpy, only four facilities are located 

within 50 km of Kansas’ borders: AGC 

Flat Glass (18 km from Missouri), 

Evergy—La Cygne (3 km from Missouri), 

Evergy—Lawrence (44 km from 

Missouri), and Kansas City BPU— 

Nearman (0.6 km from Missouri). 

Kansas provided an in-depth analysis 

for these four facilities by assessing 

current permitted emissions rates and 

existing control technologies. Kansas 

also evaluated an additional six 

facilities with SO2 emissions greater 

than 10 tpy but less than 100 tpy, 

located within 50 km of Kansas’ 

borders. Kansas also reviewed 

meteorological conditions 

representative of SO2 sources near the 

state’s border, and the distances from 

identified SO2 sources in Kansas to the 

nearest area that is not attaining the 

NAAQS or may have trouble 

maintaining the NAAQS in another 

state. Kansas also reviewed statewide 

emissions and ambient air monitoring 

trends. Finally, Kansas reviewed mobile 

source emissions data from highway 

and off-highway vehicles and 

population data in all of the Kansas 

counties which border other states. 

Based on this weight of evidence 

analysis, Kansas concluded that 

emissions from sources within the state 

will not contribute to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states. 

2. The EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation 

The EPA proposes to find that Kansas’ 

SIP meets the interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, as discussed below. To 

support our proposal, we completed a 

weight of evidence analysis which 

considers an evaluation of ambient air 

quality data and of available 

information for certain emission sources 

near the Kansas border, as well as 

available modeling results for sources in 

Kansas or neighboring states within 50 

km of Kansas’ borders. Based on that 

analysis, we propose to find that Kansas 

will not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

in any other state. 

To assess ambient air quality, the EPA 

reviewed monitoring data in Kansas and 

neighboring states to see whether there 

were any monitoring sites, particularly 

near the Kansas border, with elevated 

SO2 concentrations that might warrant 

further investigation with respect to 

interstate transport of SO2 from 

emission sources in Kansas to a 

neighboring state near any given 

monitor. We reviewed 2017–2019 SO2

design value concentrations at monitors 

with data sufficient to produce valid 1- 

hour SO2 design values for Kansas and 

neighboring states.14 In Table 2, we have 

included all monitors in each 

neighboring state and in Kansas within 

50 km of the Kansas border. As shown, 

there are no violating design values in 

Kansas or neighboring states within 50 

km of the state border. In Kansas’ 

analysis, the state reviewed its potential 

impact on the existing 2010 SO2

nonattainment area in Jackson County, 

Missouri, which is the only designated 

nonattainment area within 50 km of 

Kansas’ borders. 

The data presented in Table 2 shows 

that Kansas has one SO2 monitor within 

50 km of its borders, in Wyandotte 

County. The 2017–2019 design value for 

this monitor is 6 ppb, or 8% of the 75 

ppb level of the NAAQS. Two monitors 

in neighboring states are located within 

50 km of the Kansas border, and these 

monitors recorded SO2 design values 

ranging between 13% and 37% of the 

level of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Thus, 

these air quality data do not, by 

themselves, indicate any particular 

location that would warrant further 

investigation with respect to SO2

emission sources that might 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in the bordering states. 

However, because the monitoring 

network is not necessarily designed 15 to 

find all locations of high SO2

concentrations, this observation 

indicates an absence of evidence of 

impact at these locations but is not 

sufficient evidence by itself of an 

absence of impact at all locations in the 

neighboring states. We have therefore 

considered additional evidence to 

support our conclusion that Kansas will 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

in any other state. 

In the next step of our weight of 

evidence analysis, the EPA evaluated 

available modeling results for sources in 

Kansas and in the adjacent states that 

are within 50 km of the Kansas border. 

The purpose for evaluating modeling for 

sources in Kansas within 50 km of the 

Kansas border is to determine whether 

these sources are, either on their own or 

in conjunction with other sources near 

the border, impacting a violation of the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another 

state. The purpose of evaluating 

modeling results in adjacent states 

within 50 km of the Kansas border is to 

ascertain whether there are any modeled 

violations in neighboring states to 

which sources in Kansas could 

potentially be contributing. 

Table 4 provides a summary of the 

modeling results for two sources in 

Kansas which have available modeling 

information and are located within 50 

km of another state: Evergy—La Cygne 

Generating Station (La Cygne) and the 

Board of Public Utilities Nearman Creek 

Station (Nearman). The modeling 

analyses resulted in no modeled 

violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS within the modeling domain 

for each facility. The emission trends for 

these facilities are also provided in 

Table 3, and the EPA has verified that 

the most recent annual emissions are 

below the annual emissions from the 

years modeled at each modeled source. 

The modeling submitted by Kansas in 

September 2015 for La Cygne was based 

on allowable emissions and resulted in 

a maximum impact of 52.6 ppb or 70% 

of the level of the NAAQS.16 Kansas 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31649 

files/2016-07/documents/r7_ks_final_designation_

tsd_06302016.pdf. 

17Pursuant to La Cygne’s operating permit No. O– 

11952 issued on May 14, 2018, units 1 and 2 are 

subject to an emissions limit of 0.10 pounds per 

Million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBtu) on a 30- 

day rolling average. 

18See the EPA’s Technical Support Document for 

its Intended Round 2 Designations for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS for Kansas available at: https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ 

documents/ks-epa-tsd-r2.pdf and the EPA’s 

Technical Support Document for its Final Round 2 

Designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for Kansas 

available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2016-07/documents/r7_ks_final_designation_

tsd_06302016.pdf. 

19For more details on the modeling 

demonstration for Nearman and the nearby sources 

(i.e. sources in nearby Missouri) included in the 

modeling, see Determination of Attainment for the 

Jackson County, Missouri 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS and 

Redesignation of the Wyandotte County, Kansas 

Unclassifiable Area to Attainment/Unclassifiable, 

85 FR 41193, July 9, 2020. 

20See Id. 

21Pursuant to Nearman’s operating permit No. O– 

14125, Unit 001 is subject to an annual SO2

emission limit of 3 lb/MMBtu [K.A.R. 28–19–31(c) 

and 40 CFR 60.45(g)(2)]; 0.8 lb/MMBtu derived 

from liquid fossil fuel [NSPS Subpart D40 CFR 

60.43(a)(2)]; 1.2 lb/MMBtu derived from solid fossil 

fuel [NSPS Subpart D40 CFR 60.43(a)(1)]. 

22See Determination of Attainment for the 

Jackson County, Missouri 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS and 

Redesignation of the Wyandotte County, Kansas 

Unclassifiable Area to Attainment/Unclassifiable, 

85 FR 41193, July 9, 2020. 

23See the EPA’s Technical Support Document for 

its Intended Round 3 Designations for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS for Missouri available at: https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/ 

documents/22_mo_so2_rd3-final.pdf and the EPA’s 

Technical Support Document for its Final Round 3 

Designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for Missouri 

available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2017-12/documents/22-mo-so2-rd3-final.pdf. 

indicated in its SIP that Evergy La 

Cygne is comprised of two coal-fired 

boilers, one of which is equipped with 

a wet lime scrubber with a 95% 

efficiency for controlling SO2

emissions.17 The emissions limits 

associated with these controls were 

modeled by Kansas and resulted in a 

concentration gradient within the 

domain that does not lead the EPA to 

believe that there would be substantial 

impacts beyond the modeling domain. 

There are no SO2 sources in Missouri 

within 50 km of La Cygne around which 

the EPA would expect elevated 

concentrations to which La Cygne could 

contribute. 

For Nearman, the EPA evaluated two 

sets of available modeling results. The 

first, depicted in Table 4, includes 

modeling submitted by the State of 

Kansas.18 That modeling was based on 

actual emissions from 2012–2014 and 

resulted in a maximum impact of 49.2 

ppb, or 66% of the level of the NAAQS. 

The second set of modeling results was 

submitted by the State of Missouri and 

was the basis of the clean data 

determination for the Jackson County, 

Missouri 1-hour SO2 nonattainment 

area. That modeling, depicted in Table 

5 as associated with nearby sources in 

Missouri, included actual emissions for 

Nearman from 2016–2018.19 This 

modeling demonstrates that there are no 

violations in the designated Jackson 

County nonattainment area to which 

Kansas sources could contribute. Kansas 

explicitly reviewed the Jackson County, 

Missouri, 2010 1-hour SO2

nonattainment area, as part of its 

analysis and concluded that Kansas 

sources do not contribute to violations 

in the area as it is no longer 

experiencing violations of the NAAQS. 

Further, the EPA previously determined 

that the Jackson County, Missouri 

nonattainment area has attained the 

standard and thereby the EPA agrees 

with Kansas’ conclusion that there are 

no violations in this area to which 

Kansas sources could contribute.20

Additionally, as shown in Table 2, the 

monitor in the Jackson County, Missouri 

nonattainment area is currently 

monitoring concentrations well below 

the level of the standard. Kansas 

indicated in its SIP that BPU–Nearman 

is comprised of two units, one of which 

is equipped with a circulating dry 

scrubber for SO2 control.21 BPU– 

Nearman is also subject to the acid gas 

emissions limit of the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standard (MATS) and opts to 

meet this limit by complying with the 

SO2 emissions limits spelled out in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU. Based on 

the downward trend in emissions since 

the modeled time period, specifically 

emissions from BPU–Nearman have 

decreased by approximately 80% from 

2011 to 2019, the EPA finds the 

available modeling to be a conservative 

estimate of current actual air quality and 

an indicator that the Jackson County, 

Missouri area is not likely to experience 

issues maintaining the standard in the 

future. Additionally, it is unlikely that 

the emissions from these facilities could 

increase in the future to such a degree 

as to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in any other state. 

TABLE 4—KANSAS SOURCES WITH MODELING DATA LOCATED WITHIN 50 km OF ANOTHER STATE

Kansas 

source County 

2020 

emissions 

(tons) * 

Distance from 

source to 

Kansas border 

(km) 

Other facilities included 

in modeling 

Modeled 99th percentile 

1-hour SO2 maximum 

concentration 

(ppb) 

Model grid extends into 

another state? 

La Cygne .... Linn ............ 725 2.8 None ......................................... 52.60 (based on allowable emissions).No. 

Nearman ..... Wyandotte .. 1,211 0.77 Numerous facilities located in 

Jackson County, Missouri.

49.24 (based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for all sources).Yes (into Jackson and Platte 

County, Missouri). 

* Emissions data throughout this document were obtained using the EPA’s Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Gateway. 

Table 5 provides a summary of the 

available modeling results for sources 

with annual emissions of greater than 

100 tons per year based on the latest 

available emissions inventory in 

neighboring states which are located 

within 50 km of Kansas: Evergy 

Hawthorn Generating Station 

(Hawthorn), Audubon Materials 

(Audubon), and Empire Asbury in 

Missouri, and Continental Carbon Black 

Production Facility in Ponca City, 

Oklahoma. As stated above, we consider 

the air quality near these sources in our 

analysis because, as a result of the 

localized nature of SO2 as a pollutant, 

it is near these sources that sources in 

Kansas are more likely to contribute to 

a violation of the standard. 

For Hawthorn and Audubon, the EPA 

similarly evaluated the modeling results 

of the clean data determination 

modeling for the Jackson County, 

Missouri 1-hour SO2 nonattainment 

area, in which actual emissions for 

Hawthorn and Audubon were explicitly 

included. This modeling demonstrates 

that there are no violations in the 

designated Jackson County 

nonattainment area to which Kansas 

sources could contribute.22

The modeling submitted by Missouri 

for the Empire Asbury facility was based 

on actual emissions and resulted in a 

maximum impact of 39 ppb, or 52% of 

the level of the NAAQS.23 The Empire 

Asbury facility, located 2.5 km from the 

Kansas border, reported zero emissions 

in 2020 and officially retired in March 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31650 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

24 In a letter dated December 3, 2019, from Liberty 

Utilities to the State of Missouri, Liberty Utilities 

requested that all air permits for the Empire Asbury 

facility become void on the permanent retirement 

date of March 1, 2020. This letter is included in the 

docket for this action. 

25See the EPA’s Technical Support Document for 

its Intended Round 3 Designations for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS for Oklahoma available at: https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/ 

documents/33-ok-so2-rd3-final.pdf and the EPA’s 

Technical Support Document for its Final Round 3 

Designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for 

Oklahoma available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2017-12/documents/33-ok-so2-rd3- 

final.pdf. 

26 Kansas limited its analysis to Kansas sources of 

SO2 emitting at least 100 tpy. We agree with Kansas’ 

choice to limit its analysis in this way, because in 

the absence of special factors, for example the 

presence of a nearby larger source, a high 

concentration of smaller sources in an area, or 

unusual physical factors, Kansas sources emitting 

less than 100 tpy can appropriately be presumed to 

not be causing or contributing to SO2

concentrations above the NAAQS. 

2020.24 Additionally, there are no 

Kansas sources located within 50 km of 

the Empire Asbury facility. The 

modeling submitted by Oklahoma for 

the Continental Carbon facility in Kay, 

Oklahoma was based on actual 

emissions and resulted in a maximum 

impact of 65.1 ppb, or 87% of the level 

of the NAAQS.25 However, the 

emissions for this facility have 

decreased from 5,893 tons in 2014 (the 

highest year in the modeled period) to 

2,995 tons in 2019. Additionally, the 

Continental Carbon facility is located 37 

km from the Kansas border and there are 

no sources in Kansas within 50 km of 

the Continental Carbon facility. The 

most recent available annual emissions 

for each source are also provided in 

Table 5, and the EPA has verified that 

the most recent annual emissions are 

below the annual emissions from the 

years modeled at each modeled source. 

For these reasons, the EPA finds there 

are no areas with modeled violations 

within 50 km of the Kansas border to 

which Kansas sources could be 

contributing. 

TABLE 5—OTHER STATES’ SOURCES WITH MODELING DATA LOCATED WITHIN 50 km OF KANSAS

Source County 

2019 

emissions 

(tons) 

Distance from 

source to 

Kansas border 

(km) 

Other facilities included 

in modeling 

Modeled 99th percentile 

1-hour SO2 maximum 

concentration 

(ppb) 

Model grid extends into 

another state? 

Evergy Hawthorn .... Jackson, Missouri .. ∧ 929 9.7 Nearman (Wyandotte County, 

Kansas); other sources <100 

tons per year.

43.47 (based on 2016– 

2018 actual emissions 

for all sources).

No. 

Audubon Materials, 

LLC Sugar Creek 

Plant.

Jackson, Missouri .. 229 15 Nearman (Wyandotte County, 

Kansas); other sources <100 

tons per year of SO2.

43.47 (based on 2016– 

2018 actual emissions 

for all sources).

No. 

Empire Asbury ........ Jasper/Barton 

Counties, Missouri.

∧ 0 2.5 Other Missouri sources <100 

tons per year of SO2.

39.0 (based on 2012– 

2014 actual emissions 

for all sources).

Yes (into Crawford and 

Cherokee Counties in 

Kansas). 

Continental Carbon 

Black Production 

Facility—Ponca 

City Plant.

Kay, Oklahoma ...... 2,995 37 Oklahoma Gas & Electric, Sooner Generating Station (Noble 

County, Oklahoma), Phillips 

66 Company—Ponca City Refinery (Kay County, Oklahoma), 2 other Kay County, 

Oklahoma sources <100 tons 

per year of SO2.

65.1 (based on 2012– 

2014 actual emissions 

for all sources).

No. 

∧Based on 2020 emissions. 

The EPA proposes to find that the 

modeling results summarized in Tables 

4 and 5, which provide evidence that air 

quality near certain larger sources in 

other states is attaining the NAAQS, 

when weighed along with the other 

factors in this document, support the 

EPA’s proposed conclusion that sources 

in Kansas will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. 

The next step in our weight of 

evidence analysis is to assess certain 

other sources near the border for which 

we do not have available modeling or 

monitoring data. As noted in Section III 

of this document, the EPA finds that it 

is appropriate to examine the impacts of 

emissions from stationary sources in 

Kansas in distances ranging from 0 km 

to 50 km from the facility, based on the 

‘‘urban scale’’ definition contained in 

appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, section 

4.4. Kansas assessed point sources up to 

50 km from state borders to evaluate 

trends and SO2 concentrations in areawide air quality. The list of sources 

emitting 100 tpy 26 or more of SO2

within 50 km from state borders without 

available modeling data, is shown in 

Table 6. 

TABLE 6—KANSAS SO2 SOURCES WITH NO AVAILABLE MODELING DATA NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES

Kansas source Facility ID 

2019 SO2

emissions 

(tons) 

Distance to 

Kansas border 

(km) 

Distance to nearest neighboring 

state SO2 source 

(km) 

Neighboring 

state source 

2019 

emissions 

(tons) ∧ 

AGC Flat Glass ................................. 4538011 133.1 19 50 (Evergy Hawthorn) ...................... ∧ 929 

Evergy Lawrence .............................. 4827111 ∧ 225.5 44 55 (Evergy Iatan) ............................. ∧ 812 

∧Based on 2020 emissions. 

Table 6 shows the distance from the 

sources listed therein to the nearest outof-state source emitting above 100 tpy of 

SO2, because elevated levels of SO2, to 

which SO2 emitted in Kansas may have 

a downwind impact, are most likely to 

be found near such sources. As shown 

in Table 6, the distance between the 

sources in Kansas and the nearest 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31651 

27Pursuant to AGC’s operating permit No. O– 

10871, unit EU–001 is subject to an SO2 emission 

limit of 2.2 lb of SO2 per ton of glass produced on 

a 30-day rolling average, and 262.8 tons of SO2

emissions per rolling consecutive 12-month period. 

28Pursuant to Evergy Lawrence’s operating 

permit No. O–11856 issued on February 14, 2018, 

units 4 and 5 are subject to an emissions limit of 

0.15 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. 

29See Chapter 3 of Kansas’ SO2 Transport SIP 

Submittal included in the docket for this action for 

the wind rose graphics referenced by Kansas. 

30See id. 

31See Id. 

32See Id. 

sources emitting over 100 tpy in 

Missouri is greater than or equal to 50 

km. Additionally, Kansas evaluated the 

current operations and control 

equipment at the AGC Flat Glass and 

Evergy Lawrence facilities. In its SIP, 

Kansas indicated that the AGC Flat 

Glass facility operates a glass melting 

furnace which is equipped with dry 

sorbent injection for control of SO2.27

The Evergy Lawrence facility is 

comprised of two units which are both 

equipped with high-efficiency scrubbers 

for SO2 control.28 Kansas evaluated 

available meteorological data to 

determine the wind patterns near AGC 

Flat Glass and Evergy Lawrence. Kansas 

included wind roses for the Olathe 

Johnson County airport that depict the 

predominant wind pattern in the area as 

being from the South-Southwest 

blowing emissions from AGC Flat Glass 

away from Missouri.29 Kansas included 

wind roses for the Lawrence Municipal 

airport that depict the predominant 

wind pattern in the area as being from 

the South-Southeast blowing emissions 

from Evergy Lawrence away from the 

Jackson County nonattainment area.30

Given the large distance between the 

cross-state sources, the localized nature 

of SO2, and the wind rose analysis 

provided by Kansas, the EPA agrees it 

is unlikely that emissions from AGC 

Flat Glass or Evergy Lawrence in Kansas 

could interact with emissions from 

Evergy Hawthorn or Evergy Iatan in 

Missouri in such a way as to cause a 

violation of the NAAQS in Missouri. 

Additionally, based on the distance 

from the Kansas sources to the border 

and the overall wind patterns in the 

area, the EPA finds it unlikely that the 

sources in Kansas could on their own 

cause a violation in Missouri. 

The EPA also reviewed the location of 

sources for which modeling information 

was not available in neighboring states 

emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and 

located within 50 km of the Kansas 

border, as shown in Table 7. This is 

because elevated levels of SO2, to which 

SO2 emitted in Kansas may have a 

downwind impact, are most likely to be 

found near such sources. 

TABLE 7—NEIGHBORING STATE SO2 SOURCES WITH NO AVAILABLE MODELING DATA NEAR KANSAS * 

Source Facility ID 

2019 SO2

emissions 

(tons) 

Distance to 

Kansas border 

(km) 

Distance to nearest Kansas 

SO2 source 

(km) 

Kansas source 

2020 emissions 

(tons) 

Evergy Iatan Generating Station (Missouri) .................... 6795111 ∧ 811.6 0.7 39 (Kansas City BPU-Nearman) ....... 1,211 

Exide Technologies Canon Hollow (Missouri) ................ 331492 158.5 7.1 106 (Kansas City BPU-Nearman) ..... 1,211 

* We have not included sources that are duplicative of those in Table 6. 

∧Based on 2020 emissions. 

As shown in Table 7, the shortest 

distance between any pair of these 

sources is 39 km (between Evergy Iatan 

in Missouri and Nearman in Kansas). 

The available modeling data for the 

Nearman facility, referenced in Tables 4 

and 5, indicates that Nearman does not 

significantly contribute to violations in 

nearby areas in Missouri as there are no 

modeled violations in Missouri. Kansas 

evaluated available meteorological data 

to determine the wind patterns near 

Nearman. Kansas included wind roses 

for the Kansas City downtown airport 

that depict the predominant wind 

pattern in the area around Nearman as 

being from the South-Southwest 

blowing emissions from Nearman away 

from the Jackson County nonattainment 

area.31 Additionally, based on the 

distance between cross-state sources as 

well as the overall wind patterns in the 

area as referenced by Kansas, the EPA 

agrees that it is unlikely that emissions 

from Nearman could interact with 

emissions from Every Iatan or Exide 

Technologies in such a way as to cause 

a violation in Missouri. 

Kansas also evaluated two sources 

located within 50 km of its borders that 

emitted above 80 tpy but below 100 tpy. 

The CRNF-Coffeyville and CRRMRefinery facilities are each located 5 km 

from the Kansas border with Oklahoma. 

CRNF-Coffeyville emitted 83 tons of SO2

in 2018. CRRM-Refinery emitted 93 tons 

of SO2 in 2018. There are no sources in 

Oklahoma within 50 km of these 

sources such that their emissions could 

interact to impact a violation of the 

NAAQS. Kansas also included wind 

roses for the Coffeyville Municipal 

airport that depict the predominant 

wind pattern in the area as being from 

the South blowing emissions from the 

Kansas sources away from Oklahoma 

and further into Kansas.32 Given the 

localized nature of SO2 and the overall 

wind pattern in the area as referenced 

by Kansas, the EPA agrees it is unlikely 

that the CRNF-Coffeyville and CRRMRefinery facilities could on their own 

cause or contribute to a violation in the 

nearby State of Oklahoma. 

This information together with the 

localized range of potential 1-hour SO2

impacts indicates that there are no 

additional locations in neighboring 

states that would warrant further 

investigation with respect to Kansas SO2

emission sources that might contribute 

to problems with attainment of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

Kansas also included information on 

mobile source emissions and population 

in its border counties. Kansas indicated 

that SO2 emissions from mobile sources 

are controlled through federally 

mandated fuel standards which limit 

sulfur concentrations at the refinery 

level. Kansas notes that mobile 

emissions are disbursed in small 

quantities over large geographic areas 

leading to greater dispersion before 

crossing state borders. Additionally, 

Kansas expects further reductions in 

SO2 emissions from this sector as the 

EPA continues to regulate emissions 

from mobile sources along with regular 

fleet turnover to cleaner vehicles. The 

EPA agrees that because emissions from 

non-point sources in other source 

categories such as mobile emissions are 

more dispersed throughout the State, 

emissions from other source categories 

such as mobile sources are less likely to 

cause high ambient concentrations 

when compared to a point source on a 

ton-for-ton basis. 

In conclusion, for interstate transport 

prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO2

monitoring data and available 

information for SO2 emission sources 

within 50 km of the Kansas border, as 

well as available modeling results for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31652 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

33Additional emissions trends data are available 

at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/ 

air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. 

34 Kansas provided information on emission 

reductions and control equipment for certain 

sources in its SIP and the EPA summarized this 

information in its prong 1 analysis. 

35See 77 FR 9304. 

36See 64 FR 35714. 

37See 40 CFR parts 72 through 78. 

38See 40 CFR part 97. See also 76 FR 48208. 

39See 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. See also 77 FR 

9304. 

40See 40 CFR parts 9, 69, 80, 86, 89, 94, 1039, 

1048, 1051, 1065, and 1068. See also 69 FR 38958. 

41See 40 CFR parts 69, 80, and 86. See also 66 

FR 5002. 

42See 40 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da and 40 CFR 

part 63. See also 77 FR 9304. 

43See 40 CFR part 60, subparts A, D, E, F, G and 

H. See also 36 FR 24876. 

44See 40 CFR part 60, subparts GG and KKKK. 

See also 71 FR 38482 and 44 FR 52792 

45See 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. See also 75 FR 

54970. 

46See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da and 40 CFR part 

63. See also 77 FR 9304. 

47See 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL. See also 77 

FR 49490. 

48See 40 CFR parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 

1037, 1039, 1042, 1048, 1054, 1065, and 1066. See 

also 79 FR 23414. 

49See EPA’s final action of the PSD portions of 

Kansas’ SIP, at 80 FR 32017, June 4, 2015. 

50 Id. 

sources in Kansas and in adjacent states 

within 50 km of the Kansas border. 

Based on this analysis, we propose to 

determine that Kansas will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

in any other state, per the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

3. The EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation 

In its prong 2 analysis, Kansas 

reviewed potential SO2 impacts on 

designated maintenance areas. The EPA 

interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

prong 2 to require an evaluation of the 

potential impact of a state’s emissions 

on areas that are currently measuring 

clean data, but that may have issues 

maintaining that air quality, rather than 

only former nonattainment, and thus 

current maintenance, areas. Kansas also 

performed a prong 2 analysis based on 

the EPA’s interpretation, noting that 

monitors located near Kansas in 

neighboring states showed very low 

levels of SO2, emissions in Kansas and 

neighboring states have decreased 

indicating they should not be 

considered to have maintenance issues 

for this NAAQS. Kansas also referenced 

federal regulations which have resulted 

in and will continue to result in SO2

emissions decreases in Kansas and 

neighboring states. 

The EPA has reviewed Kansas’ 

analysis and other available information 

on SO2 air quality, including federally 

enforceable regulations and emission 

trends to evaluate the state’s conclusion 

that Kansas will not interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in 

downwind states. This evaluation 

builds on the analysis regarding 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment (prong 1), which 

evaluated monitored ambient 

concentrations of SO2 in Kansas and 

neighboring states, available modeling 

results, and the large distances between 

cross-state SO2 sources, the EPA is 

proposing to find that SO2 levels in 

neighboring states near the Kansas 

border do not indicate any inability to 

maintain the SO2 NAAQS that could be 

attributed in part to sources in Kansas. 

As shown in Table 1, the statewide SO2

emissions from Kansas and neighboring 

states have decreased substantially over 

time, per our review of the EPA’s 

emissions trends data.33 From 2000 to 

2019, total statewide SO2 emissions 

decreased by the following proportions: 

Colorado (85% decrease), Kansas (83% 

decrease), Missouri (72% decrease), 

Nebraska (40% decrease), and 

Oklahoma (68% decrease). This trend of 

decreasing SO2 emissions does not by 

itself demonstrate that areas in Kansas 

and neighboring states will not have 

issues maintaining the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. However, as a piece of this 

weight of evidence analysis for prong 2, 

it provides further indication (when 

considered alongside low monitor 

values in neighboring states as depicted 

in Table 2) that such maintenance issues 

are unlikely. This is because the 

geographic scope of these reductions 

and their large sizes strongly suggest 

that they are not transient effects from 

reversible causes, and thus these 

reductions suggest that there is very low 

likelihood that a strong upward trend in 

emissions will occur that might cause 

areas presently in attainment to violate 

the NAAQS. These reductions have 

been caused by regulatory requirements 

in Kansas and the downwind states and 

by economic factors, such as low natural 

gas prices and the increasing supply of 

renewable energy, that are not likely to 

be reversed.34

Kansas also identified EPA programs 

which, either directly or indirectly, have 

significantly reduced SO2 emissions in 

Kansas. These programs include: The 

Acid Rain program; the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD)/New 

Source Review (NSR) Permitting 

Programs; Heavy-Duty Diesel Rule; 

Mercury and Air Toxic Standards Rule 

(MATS); 35 Regional Haze; 36 Nonroad 

Diesel Rule; and the EPA’s Tier 2 Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Standards and 

Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements 

Rule. The EPA agrees that the federal 

regulations identified by Kansas have 

helped to reduce SO2 emissions from 

various sources in Kansas in addition to 

other federal regulations as detailed 

here. The EPA’s Acid Rain Program set 

a permanent cap on the total amount of 

SO2 that may be emitted by electric 

generating units (EGUs) in the 

contiguous United States.37 CSAPR 

requires significant reductions in SO2

emissions from power plants in the 

eastern half of the United States, 

including Kansas and neighboring 

states.38 MATS requires reductions of 

emissions of heavy metals which, as a 

co-benefit, reduce emissions of SO2, and 

establishes alternative numeric emission 

standards, including SO2 (as an 

alternate to hydrochloric acid).39 The 

EPA’s Nonroad Diesel Rule will reduce 

sulfur levels from about 3,000 parts per 

million (ppm) to 15 ppm when fully 

implemented.40 The EPA’s Heavy-Duty 

Engine and Vehicle Standards and 

Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control 

Requirements (Heavy-Duty Diesel Rule) 

required refiners to start producing 

diesel fuel for use in highway vehicles 

with a sulfur content of no more than 

15 ppm as of June 1, 2006.41 NSPS for 

various source categories, including but 

not limited to Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units; 42

Sulfuric Acid Plants; 43 Stationary Gas 

and Combustion Turbines; 44 Portland 

Cement Manufacturing; 45 Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units 

(Boilers); 46 and Onshore Natural Gas 

Processing,47 establish standards which 

reduce SO2 emissions. 

In addition, the EPA’s Tier 3 Motor 

Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards 

Rule 48 also reduce SO2 emissions by 

establishing gasoline sulfur standards 

that reduce SO2 emissions from certain 

types of mobile sources. The EPA finds 

that these federal measures have and 

continue to lower SO2 emissions, 

which, in turn, are expected to continue 

to support the EPA’s proposed 

conclusion that SO2 emissions from 

Kansas will not contribute significantly 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS in another state. 

As noted in Kansas’ submission, any 

future large sources of SO2 emissions 

will be addressed by Kansas’ SIPapproved Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program.49 Future 

minor sources of SO2 emissions will be 

addressed by Kansas’ minor new source 

review permit program.50 The 

permitting regulations contained within 

these programs should help ensure that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31653 

51See Nebraska’s SO2 interstate transport SIP as 

submitted in October 2020 in the docket for this 

action. 

52 Id. 

53See TSD Chapter 2: Final Round 4 Area 

Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Areas 

without Violating Monitors, at https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-12/ 

documents/02-rd4_so2d_tsd_for_areas_without_

violating_monitors.pdf. 

ambient concentrations of SO2 in 

neighboring states are not exceeded as a 

result of new facility construction or 

modification occurring in Kansas. 

As previously mentioned, Kansas 

evaluated its potential impacts to the 

Jackson County, Missouri 

nonattainment area located near the 

Kansas border. As discussed in the 

EPA’s prong 1 analysis, the modeling for 

the Jackson County area’s clean data 

determination included sources in 

Kansas and did not show substantial 

impacts from Kansas sources to the 

Missouri area. Additionally, the EPA 

has determined the area attained the 

NAAQS through a clean data 

determination with the monitor in the 

area still showing values well below the 

level of the standard. For these reasons, 

the EPA finds that emissions from 

Kansas do not interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

Jackson County area as the area is not 

exhibiting difficulties in maintaining 

the standard. 

In conclusion, for interstate transport 

prong 2, we reviewed additional 

information about SO2 air quality and 

emission trends and Kansas’ permitting 

regulations, as well as the technical 

information considered for interstate 

transport prong 1. We find that the 

combination of low ambient 

concentrations of SO2 in Kansas and 

neighboring states, the available 

modeling results, the large distances 

between cross-state SO2 sources, the 

downward trend in SO2 emissions from 

Kansas and neighboring states, and state 

measures that prevent new facility 

construction or modification in Kansas 

from causing SO2 exceedances in 

downwind states, indicates no 

interference with maintenance of the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS in other states. 

Accordingly, we propose to determine 

that Kansas SO2 emission sources will 

not interfere with maintenance of the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

B. Nebraska 

1. State’s Analysis 

In its SIP, Nebraska conducted a 

weight of evidence analysis to examine 

whether SO2 emissions from Nebraska 

adversely affect attainment or 

maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in 

downwind states.51 Nebraska evaluated 

potential air quality impacts on areas 

outside the state through an assessment 

of whether SO2 emissions from sources 

located within 50 km of Nebraska’s 

borders may have associated interstate 

transport impacts. The State’s analysis 

included SO2 emissions information in 

the state, with specific focus on sources 

and counties located within 50 km of 

Nebraska’s borders. For the seven 

sources which emitted greater than 100 

tons per year of SO2 located within 50 

km of Nebraska’s borders, Nebraska 

provided an in-depth analysis by 

assessing current permitted emissions 

rates and existing control technologies. 

Nebraska also reviewed meteorological 

conditions representative of SO2 sources 

near the state’s border, and the distances 

from identified SO2 sources in Nebraska 

to the nearest area that is not attaining 

the NAAQS or may have trouble 

maintaining the NAAQS in another 

state. Nebraska also reviewed statewide 

emissions and ambient air monitoring 

trends. Based on this weight of evidence 

analysis, Nebraska concluded that 

emissions within the state will not 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS in neighboring states. Nebraska 

also noted that SO2 emissions within 

the state have been steadily decreasing 

over time, specifically noting a 49.7% 

decrease in point source emissions 

between 2006 and 2019. With regard to 

the interference with maintenance 

requirement, Nebraska discussed the 

low monitored ambient concentrations 

of SO2 in neighboring states in the 

period up to and including 2019. Based 

on this weight of evidence analysis, 

Nebraska concluded that emissions 

within the state will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS in neighboring states. 

2. The EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation 

The EPA proposes to find that 

Nebraska’s SIP meets the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, as discussed below. To 

support our proposal, we completed a 

weight of evidence analysis which 

considers an evaluation of ambient air 

quality data and of available 

information for certain emission sources 

near the Nebraska border, as well as 

available modeling results for sources in 

Nebraska or neighboring states within 

50 km of Nebraska’s borders. Based on 

that analysis, we propose to find that 

Nebraska will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS in any other state. 

To assess ambient air quality, the EPA 

reviewed monitoring data in Nebraska 

and neighboring states to see whether 

there were any monitoring sites, 

particularly near the Nebraska border, 

with elevated SO2 concentrations that 

might warrant further investigation with 

respect to interstate transport of SO2

from emission sources in Nebraska to a 

neighboring state near any given 

monitor. We reviewed 2017–2019 SO2

design value concentrations at monitors 

with data sufficient to produce valid 1- 

hour SO2 design values for Nebraska 

and neighboring states.52 In Table 2, we 

have included all monitors in each 

neighboring state and in Nebraska 

within 50 km of the Nebraska border. As 

shown, there are no violating design 

values at monitors in Nebraska or 

neighboring states within 50 km of the 

state border. One area bordering 

Nebraska—Woodbury County, Iowa— 

has been designated unclassifiable. 

Later in this section, the EPA discusses 

modeling available for Woodbury 

County, Iowa (See Table 10). There are 

no other areas designated as 

unclassifiable located within 50 km of 

Nebraska’s borders. For these reasons 

and for reasons discussed later in this 

section, the EPA is proposing to find 

that emissions from Nebraska will not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state. 

The data presented in Table 2 show 

that there are three Nebraska monitors 

located within 50 km of a neighboring 

state’s border, and these monitors 

indicate design values between 32% to 

55% of the NAAQS. One SO2 monitor 

was installed in Nebraska as a sourceoriented monitor (AQS Site ID: 

310550057) and was sited to 

characterize the Omaha Public Power 

District’s (OPPD) North Omaha Station 

(North Omaha), which is located in 

Douglas County, Nebraska and is within 

50 km of the Nebraska border with Iowa. 

The EPA designated Douglas County as 

attainment/unclassifiable as part of the 

Round 4 designations for the 2010 1- 

hour NAAQS.53 Table 8 provides the 3- 

year design value used to characterize 

the impacts from North Omaha. The 

2017–2019 design value is 34 ppb, 

which is 45% of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

and provides evidence that there is not 

an air quality problem around the North 

Omaha facility. Therefore, it is unlikely 

that the North Omaha facility could 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS in the nearby State of Iowa. In 

its SIP, Nebraska noted that the North 

Omaha facility currently operates two 

coal-fired units, using low-sulfur coal; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31654 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

54For locations of monitors in relation to the 

sources in Nebraska and Iowa, please see map on 

page 21 of Nebraska’s SIP as contained in the 

docket for this action. 55State monitoring networks must meet the 

minimum monitoring requirements contained in 

appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. Specifically, section 

4.4 of appendix D outlines the minimum 

monitoring requirements for SO2 monitoring based 

on population weighted emissions. Monitors sited 

to meet the minimum monitoring requirements are 

sited for a number of reasons (e.g., measuring a 

source’s maximum contribution, measuring 

background concentrations, monitoring population 

exposure, etc.) and may not necessarily capture 

maximum impacts from specific sources. However, 

data from these monitors may still provide useful 

evidence in the context of interstate transport. 

56See the EPA’s Technical Support Document for 

its Intended Round 2 Designations for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS for Nebraska available at: https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ 

documents/ne-epa-tsd-r2.pdf and the EPA’s 

Technical Support Document for its Final Round 2 

Designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for Nebraska 

available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2016-07/documents/r7_ne_final_designation_

tsd_06302016.pdf. 

these units are to be converted to 

natural gas by 2023. Three coal-fired 

units were retired in 2016 which 

resulted in a significant SO2 emissions 

decrease in that year. The emissions 

trends for this source are shown in 

Table 3. Nebraska also referenced the 

low design values at the monitors 

located in Omaha (as shown in Table 2) 

between the North Omaha facility and 

the Walter Scott Jr. facility in Iowa that 

similarly support the claim that the 

North Omaha facility is not causing or 

contributing to violations of the NAAQS 

in Iowa.54 The North Omaha facility was 

also included in a modeling 

demonstration for a nearby Iowa source. 

That modeling is discussed later in this 

section and provides further evidence 

that there are no violations in Iowa to 

which the North Omaha facility could 

contribute. 

TABLE 8—NEBRASKA SOURCES WITH A SOURCE-ORIENTED MONITOR WITHIN 50 KM OF ANOTHER STATE

Nebraska source County 

2020 

emissions 

(tons) 

Distance from 

source to 

Nebraska/Iowa 

border 

(km) 

Site ID 

2017–2019 

monitor 3-year 

design value 

(ppb) 

OPPD North Omaha ................................. Douglas .............................. 5,447 0.3 310550057 34 

There is one monitor in a neighboring 

state located within 50 km of the 

Nebraska border, in Sioux City, South 

Dakota, and this monitor recorded an 

SO2 design value of 3 ppb, or 4% of the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these air 

quality data do not, by themselves, 

indicate any particular location that 

would warrant further investigation 

with respect to SO2 emission sources 

that might significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in the bordering states. 

However, because the monitoring 

network is not necessarily designed 55 to 

find all locations of high SO2

concentrations, this observation 

indicates an absence of evidence of 

impact at these locations but is not 

sufficient evidence by itself of an 

absence of impact at all locations in the 

neighboring states. We have therefore 

also conducted a source-oriented 

analysis. 

In the next step of our weight of 

evidence analysis, the EPA evaluated 

available modeling results for sources in 

Nebraska and in the adjacent states that 

are within 50 km of the Nebraska 

border. The purpose of evaluating 

modeling for sources in Nebraska within 

50 km of the Nebraska border is to 

determine whether these sources are, 

either on their own or in conjunction 

with other sources near the border, 

impacting a violation of the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS in another state. The 

purpose of evaluating modeling results 

in adjacent states within 50 km of the 

Nebraska border is to ascertain whether 

there are any modeled violations in 

neighboring states to which sources in 

Nebraska could potentially be 

contributing. 

Table 9 provides a summary of the 

modeling results for one source in 

Nebraska for which we have available 

modeling information and is located 

within 50 km of another state: Omaha 

Public Power District’s (OPPD) Nebraska 

City Station (Nebraska City).56 The 

modeling analysis for Nebraska City 

resulted in no modeled violations of the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within the 

modeling domain. The emissions trends 

for this source are included in Table 3. 

The most recent available annual 

emissions at Nebraska City are also 

provided in Table 9, and the EPA has 

verified that the most recent annual 

emissions are below the annual 

emissions from the years modeled for 

Nebraska City. The nearest source in a 

neighboring state emitting greater than 

100 tpy is the Walter Scott Jr., Energy 

Center, located 66 km North of Nebraska 

City. In its SIP, Nebraska indicated that 

Nebraska City is comprised of two coalfired units, one of which (Unit 2) is 

fitted with a dry flue gas desulfurization 

(scrubber) system to control SO2

emissions. Emissions at Nebraska City 

have decreased approximately 36% 

from 2014. Based on the large distance 

between cross-state sources, the 

localized nature of SO2, and the 

available modeling information, the 

EPA agrees that Nebraska City is not 

likely contributing to violations in Iowa 

as there are no modeled air quality 

violations in Iowa. 

TABLE 9—NEBRASKA SOURCE WITH MODELING DATA LOCATED WITHIN 50 KM OF ANOTHER STATE

Nebraska source County 

2020 

emissions 

(tons) 

Distance from 

source to 

Nebraska border 

(km) 

Other 

facilities 

included in 

modeling 

Modeled 99th 

percentile 1-hour SO2

maximum concentration 

(ppb) 

Model grid extends into 

another state? 

OPPD Nebraska City ..... Otoe ............ 11,480 0.62 None ........... 32.7 (based on 2012– 

2014 actual emissions).

Yes (Fremont County, 

Iowa). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31655 

57See the EPA’s Technical Support Document for 

its Intended Round 2 Designations for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS for Iowa available at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/ia-epatsd-r2.pdf and the EPA’s Technical Support 

Document for its Final Round 2 Designations for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS for Iowa available at: https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ 

documents/r7_ia_final_designation_tsd_

06302016.pdf. 58See docket document containing letter from 

MidAmerican Energy dated April 18, 2016, 

requesting the permits for George Neal North Units 

1 and 2 be rescinded and Iowa’s response letter 

dated September 9, 2016, indicating the permits for 

these units were revoked. 

59The modeling for the George Neal facilities 

resulted in a maximum impact near the level of the 

NAAQS; however, because this modeling was based 

on maximum allowable emissions prior to the 

shutdown of Units 1 and 2 and included a 

background concentration, the EPA finds this to be 

a conservative estimate of actual air quality in the 

Woodbury County area not an indication of 

potential air quality issues to which Nebraska 

sources could contribute. 

60See the EPA’s Technical Support Document for 

its Intended Round 3 Designations for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS for Iowa available at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/14_ia_

so2_rd3-final.pdf and the EPA’s Technical Support 

Document for its Final Round 3 Designations for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS for Iowa available at: https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/ 

documents/14-ia-so2-rd3-final.pdf. 

61See Id. 

62For locations of monitors in relation to the 

sources in Nebraska and Iowa, please see map on 

page 21 of Nebraska’s SIP as contained in the 

docket for this action. 

63Nebraska also included emissions trends for 

certain sources in neighboring states in Table 5 of 

its SIP which depicts the downward trend in 

emissions at these sources as well. See Nebraska’s 

SIP submittal included in the docket for this action. 

Table 10 provides a summary of the 

available modeling results for the 

modeled sources in neighboring states 

which are located within 50 km of 

Nebraska: Mid-American Energy— 

George Neal North (George Neal North), 

Mid-American Energy George Neal 

South (George Neal South) and MidAmerican Energy Walter Scott Jr. Energy 

Center (Walter Scott Jr.) in Iowa. The 

Round 2 1-hour SO2 designations 

modeling for Woodbury County, Iowa 

explicitly included George Neal North 

and George Neal South and no other 

SO2 sources in the area, and included 

portions of Nebraska in the modeling 

domain.57 In 2016, the EPA designated 

Woodbury County, Iowa as 

unclassifiable, because even though the 

modeling demonstrated attainment for 

the area, some emission rates used in 

the modeling analysis, specifically the 

emission rates for MidAmerican Energy 

Company’s George Neal North Units 1 

and 2 were not yet federally enforceable 

at the time of the final Round 2 

designations (in June 2016). In 

September 2016, Iowa rescinded the 

permits for George Neal North Units 1 

and 2 as they were permanently 

retired.58 Therefore, the EPA can 

consider the Round 2 modeling 

demonstration for the purpose of 

evaluating potential transport as the 

emissions rates assumed in the 

modeling have since become federally 

enforceable.59 The North Omaha Station 

is located over 100 km from the George 

Neal facilities in Iowa. Specifically, 

there are no sources of SO2 emitting 

over 10 tpy in Nebraska located within 

50 km of George Neal North and George 

Neal South, providing further evidence 

that Nebraska emissions are not causing 

or contributing to violations in 

Woodbury County, Iowa. 

The modeling submitted by Iowa for 

Walter Scott Jr. in Pottawattamie County 

based on a set of hybrid (i.e., a mix of 

allowable and 2012–2014 actual) 

emissions for Walter Scott Jr. and the 

OPPD North Omaha Station located in 

Nebraska resulted in a maximum impact 

of 51.1 ppb, or 68% of the level of the 

NAAQS.60 The modeling demonstrates 

maximum impacts below the level of 

the NAAQS and thereby provides 

evidence that Nebraska emissions are 

not causing or contributing to violations 

in the area of Pottawattamie County, 

Iowa around Walter Scott Jr. As 

depicted in Figure 19 of the EPA’s 

Technical Support Document for its 

Intended Round 3 Designations for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS for Iowa, the 

maximum modeled impact is located to 

the Southeast of the Walter Scott Jr. 

facility.61 The North Omaha Station is 

located approximately 19 km from the 

Walter Scott Jr. facility. As previously 

mentioned, Nebraska also referenced the 

low design values at the monitors 

located in Omaha (as shown in Table 2) 

between the North Omaha facility and 

the Walter Scott Jr. facility in Iowa that 

similarly support the claim that the 

North Omaha facility is not causing or 

contributing to violations of the NAAQS 

in Iowa.62 Based on the distance 

between cross-state sources, the 

localized nature of SO2 and the 

available modeling and monitoring 

information for the area, the EPA agrees 

that the North Omaha Station is not 

likely to cause or contribute to 

violations in Iowa as there are no air 

quality violations in the nearby area in 

Iowa. 

The most recent available annual 

emissions of these identified sources in 

nearby states are also provided in Table 

10, and the EPA has verified that the 

most recent annual emissions are below 

the annual emissions from the years 

modeled at each source.63

TABLE 10—OTHER STATES’ SOURCES WITH MODELING DATA LOCATED WITHIN 50 KM OF NEBRASKA

Other state source County 

2020 

emissions 

(tons) 

Distance from 

source to 

Nebraska border 

(km) 

Other facilities 

included in 

modeling 

Modeled 99th 

percentile 1-hour 

SO2 maximum 

concentration 

(ppb) 

Model grid extends 

into another state? 

George Neal North Woodbury, Iowa ..... 1,660 0.2 George Neal South 

(Iowa).

74.3 (Allowable 

Emissions).

Yes (Dakota and 

Thurston Counties, Nebraska). 

George Neal South Woodbury, Iowa ..... 1,203 0.8 George Neal North 

(Iowa).

74.3 (Allowable 

Emissions).

Yes (Dakota and 

Thurston Counties, Nebraska). 

Walter Scott Jr. ....... Pottawattamie, Iowa 5,960 0.1 OPPD North 

Omaha (Nebraska).

51.1 (Hybrid of Actual and Allowable Emissions 

for 2012–2014).

Yes (Douglas and 

Sarpy Counties, 

Nebraska). 

The EPA proposes to find that the 

modeling results summarized in Tables 

9 and 10, which provide evidence that 

air quality near certain larger sources in 

other states is attaining the NAAQS, 

when weighed along with the other 

factors in this document, support the 

EPA’s proposed conclusion that sources 

in Nebraska will not significantly 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31656 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

64Nebraska limited its analysis to Nebraska 

sources of SO2 emitting at least 100 tpy. We agree 

with Nebraska’s choice to limit its analysis in this 

way, because in the absence of special factors, for 

example the presence of a nearby larger source, a 

high concentration of small sources in an area, or 

unusual physical factors, Nebraska sources emitting 

less than 100 tpy can appropriately be presumed to 

not be causing or contributing to SO2

concentrations above the NAAQS. 

65See page 24 of Nebraska’s SO2 Transport SIP 

Submittal included in the docket for this action for 

the wind rose referenced by Nebraska. 

66See page 32 of Nebraska’s SO2 Transport SIP 

Submittal included in the docket for this action for 

the wind rose referenced by Nebraska. 

contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. 

The next step in our weight of 

evidence analysis, is to assess certain 

other sources near the border for which 

we do not have available modeling or 

monitoring data. As noted in section III 

of this document, the EPA finds that it 

is appropriate to examine the impacts of 

emissions from stationary sources in 

Nebraska in distances ranging from 0 

km to 50 km from the facility, based on 

the ‘‘urban scale’’ definition contained 

in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, section 

4.4. Nebraska assessed point sources up 

to 50 km from neighboring state borders 

to evaluate trends and SO2

concentrations in area-wide air quality 

The list of sources emitting 100 tpy 64 or 

more of SO2 within 50 km from state 

borders without available modeling data 

is shown in Table 11. 

TABLE 11—NEBRASKA SO2 SOURCES WITHOUT AVAILABLE MODELING DATA NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES

Nebraska source Facility ID 

2019 SO2

emissions 

(tons) 

Distance to 

Nebraska 

border 

(km) 

Distance to nearest neighboring state 

SO2 source 

(km) 

Neighboring 

state source 

2019 

emissions 

(tons) 

Clean Harbors Environmental 

Services, Inc.

7768011 205.9 15 95 (HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refinery, Wyoming).174.7 

Western Sugar Cooperative .. 7767911 144.7 35 107 (Basin Electric Power Cooperative— 

Laramie River Station, Wyoming).

∧5261 

Ash Grove Cement Co .......... 7287311 681.4 24 33 (MidAmerican Energy Co.—Walter Scott 

Jr., Iowa).

∧5960 

Douglas Co Recycling Landfill.7699311 164.6 25 41 (MidAmerican Energy Co.—Walter Scott 

Jr., Iowa).

∧5960 

Lon D Wright Power Plant .... 7766111 ∧587.9 33 59 (MidAmerican Energy Co.—Walter Scott 

Jr., Iowa).

∧5960 

∧Based on 2020 emissions. 

TABLE 12—NEIGHBORING STATE SO2 SOURCES NEAR NEBRASKA * 

Source Facility ID 

2019 SO2

emissions 

(tons) 

Distance to 

Nebraska 

border 

(km) 

Distance to nearest Nebraska 

SO2 source 

(km) 

Nebraska 

source 2020 

emissions 

(tons) 

Exide Technologies Canon Hollow 

(Missouri).

8230311 158.5 7.2 80 (OPPD Nebraska City Station) ... 11,480 

* Table 12 does not include sources duplicative of Table 11. 

As shown, there are two Nebraska 

sources (Ash Grove Cement Company 

and Douglas County Recycling Landfill) 

located within 50 kilometers of a crossstate source, MidAmerican Energy Co.— 

Walter Scott Jr., located in the State of 

Iowa. As previously discussed and 

shown in Table 10, modeling submitted 

to the EPA by the State of Iowa for the 

Pottawattomie County area, containing 

Walter Scott Jr., indicates that the 

highest predicted 99th percentile daily 

maximum 1-hour concentration within 

the modeling domain is 51.1 ppb. 

Additionally, as shown in Table 8, the 

most recent 3-year design value for 

Douglas County, Nebraska, containing 

the North Omaha Station is 34 ppb. 

Nebraska evaluated available 

meteorological data to determine the 

wind patterns near Ash Grove Cement 

Company and Douglas County 

Recycling Landfill. For the Ash Grove 

Cement Company, Nebraska included a 

wind rose for the Plattsmouth airport 

that depicts the predominant wind 

pattern in the area as being in a 

Southeast-Northwest pattern which 

would blow emissions away from the 

Walter Scott Jr. facility in Iowa.65 For 

the Douglas County Recycling Landfill, 

Nebraska included a wind rose for the 

Omaha/Eppley airport that depicts the 

predominant wind pattern in the area as 

being in a South-Southeast and NorthNorthwest wind pattern which would 

keep emissions from Douglas County 

Recycling Landfill in Nebraska.66

Nebraska also referenced the low design 

values at the monitors located in Omaha 

(as shown in Table 2) between the 

Douglas County Recycling Landfill and 

the Walter Scott Jr. facility in Iowa that 

similarly support the claim that the 

Douglas County Recycling Landfill is 

not causing or contributing to violations 

of the NAAQS in Iowa. Based on the 

respective distances from Ash Grove 

Cement Company and Douglas County 

Recycling Landfill to the Nebraska 

border, the localized nature of SO2, and 

the general wind patterns in the area as 

referenced by Nebraska, the EPA agrees 

that it is unlikely these Nebraska 

sources could on their own cause or 

contribute to a violation in the 

neighboring State of Iowa. 

For the remaining three Nebraska 

sources listed in Table 11, there are no 

cross-state sources located within 50 km 

of the Nebraska source meaning it is 

unlikely there is an air quality problem 

in the neighboring state to which the 

Nebraska sources could contribute. 

Additionally, based on the distance 

from each Nebraska source to the border 

along with the localized nature of SO2, 

the EPA finds it unlikely that these 

sources could on their own cause or 

contribute to a violation in any other 

state. As shown in Table 12, Exide 

Technologies in Missouri is located 7 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31657 

67Additional emissions trends data are available 

at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/ 

air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. 68Nebraska provided information on emission 

reductions and control equipment for certain 

sources in its SIP and the EPA summarized this 

information in its prong 1 analysis. 69See 40 CFR parts 72 through 78. 70See 40 CFR part 97. See also 76 FR 48208. 71See 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. See also 77 FR 

9304. 

72See 40 CFR parts 9, 69, 80, 86, 89, 94, 1039, 

1048, 1051, 1065, and 1068. See also 69 FR 38958. 

73See 40 CFR parts 69, 80, and 86. See also 66 

FR 5002. 

74See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da and 40 CFR part 

63. See also 77 FR 9304. 

75See 40 CFR part 60, subparts A, D, E, F, G and 

H. See also 36 FR 24876. 

76See 40 CFR part 60, subparts GG and KKKK. 

See also 71 FR 38482 and 44 FR 52792. 

77See 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. See also 75 FR 

54970. 

78See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da and 40 CFR part 

63. See also 77 FR 9304. 

79See 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL. See also 77 

FR 49490. 

80See 40 CFR parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 

1037, 1039, 1042, 1048, 1054, 1065, and 1066. See 

also 79 FR 23414. 

81See EPA’s final action of the PSD portions of 

Nebraska’s SIP, at 83 FR 14179, April 2, 2018. 

82 Id. 

km from the Nebraska border; however, 

there are no Nebraska sources within 50 

km which could contribute to a 

potential air quality problem in 

Missouri near the Exide facility. 

In conclusion, for interstate transport 

prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO2

monitoring data and SO2 emissions 

information as well as available 

modeling information for sources both 

within Nebraska and in neighboring 

states within 50 km of Nebraska’s 

borders. Based on this analysis, we 

propose to determine that Nebraska will 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

in any other state, per the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

3. The EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation 

In its prong 2 analysis, Nebraska 

reviewed potential SO2 impacts on 

designated maintenance areas. The EPA 

interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

prong 2 to require an evaluation of the 

potential impact of a state’s emissions 

on areas that are currently measuring 

clean data, but that may have issues 

maintaining that air quality, rather than 

only former nonattainment, and thus 

current maintenance, areas. Nebraska 

also performed a prong 2 analysis based 

on the EPA’s interpretation, noting that 

monitors located near Nebraska in 

neighboring states showed very low 

levels of SO2 and emissions in Nebraska 

and neighboring states have decreased, 

indicating they should not be 

considered to have maintenance issues 

for this NAAQS. 

The EPA has reviewed Nebraska’s 

analysis and other available information 

on SO2 air quality and emission trends 

to evaluate the state’s conclusion that 

Nebraska will not interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in 

downwind states. This evaluation 

builds on the analysis regarding 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment (prong 1), which 

evaluated monitored ambient 

concentrations of SO2 in Nebraska and 

neighboring states, available modeling 

results, the distances between crossstate SO2 sources, and other factors. The 

EPA is proposing to find that SO2 levels 

in neighboring states near the Nebraska 

border do not indicate any inability to 

maintain the SO2 NAAQS that could be 

attributed in part to sources in 

Nebraska. 

As shown in Table 1, the statewide 

SO2 emissions from Nebraska and 

neighboring states have decreased 

substantially over time, per our review 

of the EPA’s emissions trends data.67

From 2000 to 2019, total statewide SO2

emissions decreased by the following 

proportions: Colorado (85% decrease), 

Iowa (76% decrease), Kansas (83% 

decrease), Missouri (72% decrease), 

Nebraska (40% decrease), South Dakota 

(88% decrease) and Wyoming (70% 

decrease). This trend of decreasing SO2

emissions does not by itself demonstrate 

that areas in Nebraska and neighboring 

states will not have issues maintaining 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, as a 

piece of this weight of evidence analysis 

for prong 2, it provides further 

indication (when considered alongside 

low monitor values in neighboring 

states as depicted in Table 2) that such 

maintenance issues are unlikely. This is 

because the geographic scope of these 

reductions and their large sizes strongly 

suggest that they are not transient effects 

from reversible causes, and thus these 

reductions suggest that there is very low 

likelihood that a strong upward trend in 

emissions will occur that might cause 

areas presently in attainment to violate 

the NAAQS. These reductions have 

been caused by regulatory requirements 

in Nebraska and the downwind states 

and by economic factors, such as low 

natural gas prices and the increasing 

supply of renewable energy, that are not 

likely to be reversed.68

The EPA also evaluated federal 

regulations which have helped to 

reduce SO2 emissions from various 

sources in Nebraska and neighboring 

states. The EPA’s Acid Rain Program set 

a permanent cap on the total amount of 

SO2 that may be emitted by EGUs in the 

contiguous United States.69 CSAPR 

requires significant reductions in SO2

emissions from power plants in the 

eastern half of the United States, 

including Nebraska and neighboring 

states.70 MATS requires reductions of 

emissions of heavy metals which, as a 

co-benefit, reduce emissions of SO2, and 

establishes alternative numeric emission 

standards, including SO2 (as an 

alternate to hydrochloric acid).71 The 

EPA’s Nonroad Diesel Rule will reduce 

sulfur levels from about 3,000 parts per 

million (ppm) to 15 ppm when fully 

implemented.72 The EPA’s Heavy-Duty 

Engine and Vehicle Standards and 

Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control 

Requirements (Heavy-Duty Diesel Rule) 

required refiners to start producing 

diesel fuel for use in highway vehicles 

with a sulfur content of no more than 

15 ppm as of June 1, 2006.73 NSPS for 

various source categories, including but 

not limited to Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units; 74

Sulfuric Acid Plants; 75 Stationary Gas 

and Combustion Turbines; 76 Portland 

Cement Manufacturing; 77 Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units 

(Boilers); 78 and Onshore Natural Gas 

Processing,79 establish standards which 

reduce SO2 emissions. 

In addition, the EPA’s Tier 3 Motor 

Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards 

Rule 80 also reduce SO2 emissions by 

establishing gasoline sulfur standards 

that reduce SO2 emissions from certain 

types of mobile sources. The EPA finds 

that these federal measures have and 

continue to lower SO2 emissions, 

which, in turn, are expected to continue 

to support the EPA’s proposed 

conclusion that SO2 emissions from 

Nebraska will not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. 

As noted in Nebraska’s submission, 

any future large sources of SO2

emissions will be addressed by 

Nebraska’s SIP-approved PSD 

program.81 Future minor sources of SO2

emissions will be addressed by 

Nebraska’s minor new source review 

permit program.82 The permitting 

regulations contained within these 

programs should help ensure that 

ambient concentrations of SO2 in 

neighboring states are not exceeded as a 

result of new facility construction or 

modification occurring in Nebraska. 

In conclusion, for interstate transport 

prong 2, we reviewed additional 

information about SO2 air quality and 

emission trends, federal regulations, and 

Nebraska’s permitting regulations, as 

well as the technical information 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31658 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

considered for interstate transport prong 

1. We find that the combination of low 

ambient concentrations of SO2 in 

Nebraska and neighboring states, 

available modeling results, the distances 

between cross-state SO2 sources, the 

downward trend in SO2 emissions from 

Nebraska and surrounding states, and 

state measures that prevent new facility 

construction or modification in 

Nebraska from causing SO2 exceedances 

in downwind states, indicates no 

interference with maintenance of the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS from Nebraska in 

other states. Accordingly, we propose to 

determine that Nebraska SO2 emission 

sources will not interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in 

any other state, per the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

V. Requirements for Approval of a SIP 

Revision 

The State submissions have met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submissions also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. Kansas provided public 

notice on its SIP revision from January 

16, 2020, to February 17, 2020, and 

received no comments. Nebraska 

provided public notice on its SIP 

revision from September 14, 2020, to 

October 16, 2020, and received no 

comments. In addition, the revision 

meets the substantive SIP requirements 

of the CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

VI. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

following submittals as meeting the 

interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS: Kansas’ April 7, 2020 

submittal and Nebraska’s October 27, 

2020 submittal. The EPA is proposing 

this approval based on our review of the 

information and analysis provided by 

each state, as well as additional relevant 

information, which indicates that instate air emissions will not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS in any other state. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the CAA. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the CAA. 

Accordingly, these proposed actions 

merely approve state law as meeting 

federal requirements and do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

these proposed actions: 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are 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.); 

• Do 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); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• Do not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, these SIPs are not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 8, 2021. 

Edward H. Chu, 

Acting 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 R—Kansas 

■ 2. In § 52.870, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry 

‘‘(46)’’ in numerical order to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(46) Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution 

to nonattainment (prong 1), and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQs (prong 2) (Interstate 

Transport) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Statewide ............. 4/7/2020 [Date of publication of final rule in 

the Federal Register], [Federal 

Register citation of the final rule].

[EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0365; FRL– 

10024–81–Region 7]. This action 

addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 

1 and 2. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31659 

Subpart CC—Nebraska 

■ 3. In § 52.1420, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry 

‘‘(37)’’ in numerical order to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NEBRASKA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(37) Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution 

to nonattainment (prong 1), and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQs (prong 2) (Interstate 

Transport) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Statewide ............. 10/27/2020 [Date of publication of final rule in 

the Federal Register], [Federal 

Register citation of the final rule].

[EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0365; FRL– 

10024–81–Region 7]. This action 

addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 

1 and 2. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12501 Filed 6–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Parts 300–3, 302–2, 302–3, 

302–12, 302–15, and 302–17 

[FTR Case 2020–302–1; Docket No. 2020– 

0019, Sequence 1] 

RIN 3090–AK31 

Federal Travel Regulation; Taxes on 

Relocation Expenses, Withholding Tax 

Allowance (WTA) and Relocation 

Income Tax Allowance (RITA) 

Eligibility 

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide 

Policy (OGP), General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA), in consultation 

with the Secretary of the Treasury, is 

proposing to amend the Federal Travel 

Regulation (FTR) to authorize 

Withholding Tax Allowance (WTA) and 

Relocation Income Tax Allowance 

(RITA) to all individuals who receive 

relocation allowances paid by the 

Federal Government. This amendment 

is in accordance with legislative 

changes to GSA’s statutory authority for 

taxes on reimbursements for travel, 

transportation, and relocation expenses 

as enacted in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat at one of the addresses 

shown below on or before August 16, 

2021 to be considered in the formation 

of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FTR Case 2020–302–1: 

Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

searching for ‘‘FTR Case 2020–302–1. 

Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘FTR Case 2020–302– 

1.’’ Follow the instructions provided on 

the screen. Please include your name, 

company name (if any), and ‘‘FTR Case 

2020–302–1’’ on your attached 

document. If your comment cannot be 

submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

points of contact in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document for alternate instructions. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FTR Case 2020–302–1, in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Rodney (Rick) Miller, Program Analyst, 

Office of Government-wide Policy, at 

202–501–3822 or rodney.miller@gsa.gov 

for clarification of content. For 

information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules, contact the 

Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202– 

501–4755 or GSARegSec@gsa.gov. 

Please cite ‘‘FTR Case 2020–302–1.’’ 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Federal agencies authorize relocation 

entitlements to those listed at FTR 

§ 302–1.1 and those assigned under the 

Government Employees Training Act 

(GETA) (5 U.S.C. Chapter 41). 

Public Law (Pub. L.) 115–97, known 

as the ‘‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,’’ 

suspended qualified moving expense 

deductions along with the exclusion for 

employer reimbursements and 

payments of moving expenses effective 

January 1, 2018, for tax years 2018 

through 2025, therefore making almost 

all relocation entitlements subject to 

additional tax liability. 

To assist with the additional tax 

liability, agencies are authorized to pay 

WTA and RITA to cover ‘‘substantially 

all’’ of the increased tax liability 

resulting from receipt of the relocation 

expense reimbursements either paid 

directly or indirectly. However, in the 

version of 5 U.S.C. 5724b immediately 

preceding the passage of Section 1114 of 

the ‘‘National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2020’’ (Pub. L. 116– 

92) (‘‘the Act’’), WTA and RITA were 

available only to employees 

‘‘transferred’’ in the interest of the 

Government from one official station or 

agency to another for permanent duty. 

Previously, new appointees 

(including political appointees), Senior 

Executive Service (SES) employees 

performing a ‘‘last move home’’, 

employees returning from an overseas 

assignment for the purpose of separating 

from Government service, and those 

assigned under GETA were not eligible 

for WTA and RITA as such individuals 

were not ‘‘transferred’’ in the interest of 

the Government from one official station 

or agency to another for permanent 

duty. The suspension of qualified 

moving expense deductions in Public 

Law 115–97 substantially increased the 

tax liability of these individuals, which 

could not be reimbursed through WTA 

or RITA. 

However, Section 1114 of the Act 

amended 5 U.S.C. 5724b to expand 

eligibility for WTA and RITA beyond 

‘‘transferred’’ employees to include all 

individuals whose travel, 

transportation, or relocation expenses 

are reimbursed or furnished in kind 

pursuant to subchapter 57 or chapter 41 

of title 5, U.S.C. These individuals 

include, among others, those not 

previously eligible for WTA and RITA, 

e.g., new appointees (including political 

appointees), employees returning from 

an overseas assignment for the purpose 

of separation from Government service, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS