Document ID: EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0155-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Plan Approval; Missouri and Kansas; Determination of Attainment for the Jackson County, Missouri 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area and Redesignation of the Wyandotte County, Kansas Unclassifiable Area to Attainment/Unclassifiable
Posted Date: 2020-04-15T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20896-20908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07143]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2020-0155 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without 
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written 
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracey Casburn, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number (913) 551-
7016; email address casburn.tracey@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

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

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-
0155, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

[[Page 20897]]

II. What action is the EPA proposing?

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

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

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

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

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

III. What is the background of this action?

A. Designations

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Clean Data Policy

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

[[Page 20898]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 20899]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 20900]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 20901]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 20902]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Monitoring Data

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

[[Page 20903]]

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

B. Jackson County Clean Data Modeling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 20904]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Wyandotte County Redesignation Modeling

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

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

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

[[Page 20905]]

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

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

[[Page 20906]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 20907]]

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

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

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

A. Jackson County, Missouri

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

B. Wyandotte County, Kansas

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

[[Page 20908]]

     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not 
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any 
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe 
has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the action does not 
have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs 
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Clean data 
determination, Determination of attainment, Incorporation by reference, 
Redesignation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
Dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: March 31, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart--AA Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1343, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1343  Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.

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

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

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

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

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

Sec.  81.317  Kansas.

* * * * *

                    Kansas--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
                                [Primary]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Designation
      Designated area \1\      -----------------------------------------
                                       Date \2\               Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Wyandotte County, KS..........  [Date of publication    Attainment/
                                 of the final rule in    Unclassifiable.
                                 the Federal
                                 Register], [Federal
                                 Register citation of
                                 the final rule].
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise
  specified. EPA is not determining the boundaries of any area of Indian
  country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in
  the larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in
  the designation area is not a determination that the state has
  regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is April 9, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

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