Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Standard, 3958-3963 [2022-01497]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3958
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules
other information necessary to address
the safety concerns regarding the
notified use, FDA may determine that
the FCN is no longer effective because
there is no longer a basis to conclude
that the intended use is safe.
(2) Data or other information available
to FDA demonstrate that the
manufacturer or supplier specified in
the FCN has stopped or intends to stop
producing, supplying, or using a food
contact substance for the intended use.
Such data or other information includes
but is not limited to:
(i) A request from the manufacturer or
supplier.
(A) The manufacturer or supplier
specified in the FCN may request in
writing that FDA determine that an FCN
is no longer effective on the basis that
it has stopped producing, supplying, or
using a food contact substance for the
intended food contact use in the United
States or that it intends to stop
producing, supplying, or using a food
contact substance for the intended food
contact use in the United States by a
specified date. FDA will notify the
manufacturer or supplier whether FDA
is granting the request.
(B) If FDA grants the request, FDA
may determine that the FCN is no longer
effective on the basis that the
manufacturer or supplier has stopped
producing, supplying, or using a food
contact substance for the intended use
in the United States or that it intends to
stop producing, supplying, or using a
food contact substance for the intended
food contact use in the United States by
a specified date. When such a request is
based on the intent to stop producing,
supplying, or using a food contact
substance for the intended food contact
use in the United States at a future date,
FDA will include in the notice
described in paragraph (b) of this
section the date specified in the request
as the compliance date by which the
manufacturer or supplier will stop
producing, supplying, or using the food
contact substance for the intended food
contact use in the United States.
(ii) Other data or information
available to FDA.
(A) If other data or information
available to FDA demonstrate that a
food contact substance is no longer
produced, supplied, or used for an
intended food contact use in the United
States, FDA will inform the affected
manufacturer or supplier specified in
the FCN, in writing. FDA will include
a specified time period by which the
manufacturer or supplier must provide
FDA with data or other information that
demonstrate that the manufacturer or
supplier continues to produce, supply,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
or use a food contact substance for the
intended use in the United States.
(B) If the manufacturer or supplier
fails, by the specified date, to provide
data or other information that
demonstrate that the manufacturer or
supplier continues to produce, supply,
or use a food contact substance for the
intended use in the United States; or if
the manufacturer or supplier confirms
that it has stopped producing,
supplying, or using the food contact
substance for the intended food contact
use in the United States, FDA may
determine that the FCN is no longer
effective.
(3) The intended use of the food
contact substance identified in the FCN
is authorized by a food additive
regulation.
(i) FDA will inform the manufacturer
or supplier specified in the FCN in
writing that the intended use of the food
contact substance identified in the FCN
is authorized by a food additive
regulation. FDA will include a specified
time period by which the manufacturer
or supplier must respond to FDA with
data or other information about whether
the intended use of the food contact
substance is authorized by a food
additive regulation.
(ii) If a manufacturer or supplier fails,
by the specified date, to supply data or
other information that demonstrate that
the intended use of the food contact
substance identified in the FCN is not
authorized by a food additive
regulation, FDA may determine that the
FCN is no longer effective on the basis
that the intended use of the food contact
substance is authorized under a food
additive regulation.
(4) The intended use of the food
contact substance identified in the FCN
is covered by a threshold of regulation
exemption.
(i) FDA will inform the manufacturer
or supplier specified in the authorizing
FCN in writing that the intended use of
the food contact substance identified in
the FCN is covered by a threshold of
regulation exemption. FDA will include
a specified time period by which the
manufacturer or supplier must respond
to FDA with data or other information
about whether the intended use of the
food contact substance is covered by a
threshold of regulation exemption.
(ii) If a manufacturer or supplier fails,
by the specified date, to supply data or
other information that demonstrate that
the intended use of the food contact
substance identified in the FCN is not
covered by a threshold of regulation
exemption, FDA may determine that the
FCN is no longer effective on the basis
that the intended use of the food contact
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
substance is covered under a threshold
of regulation exemption.
(b) If FDA determines that an FCN is
no longer effective, FDA will publish a
notice of its determination in the
Federal Register stating that a detailed
summary of the basis for FDA’s
determination that the FCN is no longer
effective has been placed on public
display and that copies are available
upon request. If FDA determines it
would be protective of public health,
FDA may include a separate compliance
date for the use of the food contact
substance in food contact articles,
including food contact substances that
were produced, supplied, or used by the
manufacturer or supplier before
publication of the notice in the Federal
Register or before the compliance date
described in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) of
this section. The date that the notice
publishes in the Federal Register is the
date on which the notification is no
longer effective. FDA’s determination
that an FCN is no longer effective is
final agency action subject to judicial
review.
(c) FDA’s determination that an FCN
is no longer effective does not preclude
any manufacturer or supplier from
submitting a new FCN for the same food
contact substance, including for the
same intended use, after FDA has
determined that an FCN is no longer
effective, unless the intended use of the
food contact substance is authorized by
a food additive regulation or covered by
a threshold of regulation exemption.
The new submission must be made
under §§ 170.100 and 170.101.
Dated: January 20, 2022.
Janet Woodcock,
Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 2022–01527 Filed 1–25–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0932; FRL–9461–01–
R7]
Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Determination
of Attainment by the Attainment Date
for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine
that the Muscatine sulfur dioxide (SO2)
nonattainment area attained the 2010 1SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules
hour SO2 primary national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) by the
applicable attainment date of October 4,
2018, based upon a weight-of-evidence
analysis using available air quality
information. Additional analysis of the
attainment determination is provided in
a Technical Support Document (TSD)
included in the docket to this proposed
rulemaking. This action, if finalized,
will address the EPA’s obligation under
a consent decree which establishes a
deadline of March 31, 2022 for the EPA
to determine under Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 179(c) whether the Muscatine
SO2 nonattainment area attained the
NAAQS by the October 4, 2018
attainment date.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2021–0932 to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jason Heitman, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air
Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219;
telephone number: (913) 551–7664;
email address: heitman.jason@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. Background
A. The 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
B. Designations, Classifications, and
Attainment Dates for the 2010 SO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
III. Proposed Determination
A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory
Provisions
B. Monitoring Network Considerations
C. Data Considerations and Proposed
Determination
i. Emissions Information
ii. Monitoring Data
iii. Meteorology
iv. Modeling Information
v. Conclusion
IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public
Comment
V. Environmental Justice Concerns
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2021–
0932, at https://www.regulations.gov.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
II. Background
A. The 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
Under section 109 of the CAA, the
EPA has established primary and
secondary NAAQS for certain pervasive
air pollutants (referred to as ‘‘criteria
pollutants’’) and conducts periodic
reviews of the NAAQS to determine
whether they should be revised or
whether new NAAQS should be
established. The primary NAAQS
represent ambient air quality standards
the attainment and maintenance of
which the EPA has determined,
including a margin of safety, are
requisite to protect the public health.
The secondary NAAQS represent
ambient air quality standards the
attainment and maintenance of which
the EPA has determined are requisite to
protect the public welfare from any
known or anticipated adverse effects
associated with the presence of such air
pollutant in the ambient air.
Under the CAA, the EPA must
establish a NAAQS for SO2. SO2 is
primarily released to the atmosphere
through the burning of fossil fuels by
power plants and other industrial
facilities. SO2 is also emitted from
industrial processes including metal
extraction from ore and heavy
equipment that burn fuel with a high
sulfur content. Short-term exposure to
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3959
SO2 can damage the human respiratory
system and increase breathing
difficulties. Small children and people
with respiratory conditions, such as
asthma, are more sensitive to the effects
of SO2. Sulfur oxides at high
concentrations can also react with
compounds to form small particulates
that can penetrate deeply into the lungs
and cause health problems.
The EPA first established primary SO2
standards in 1971 at 0.14 parts per
million (ppm) over a 24-hour averaging
period and 0.3 ppm over an annual
averaging period (36 FR 8186, April 30,
1971). In June 2010, the EPA revised the
NAAQS for SO2 to provide increased
protection of public health, providing
for revocation of the 1971 primary
annual and 24-hour SO2 standards for
most areas of the country following area
designations under the new NAAQS.
The 2010 NAAQS is 75 parts per billion
(ppb) (equivalent to 0.075 ppm) over a
1-hour averaging period (75 FR 35520,
June 22, 2010). A violation of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS occurs when the
annual 99th percentile of ambient daily
maximum 1-hour average SO2
concentrations, averaged over a 3-year
period, exceeds 75 ppb.
B. Designations, Classifications, and
Attainment Dates for the 2010 SO2
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Following promulgation of any new
or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required
by CAA section 107(d) to designate
areas throughout the nation as attaining
or not attaining the NAAQS.
On August 5, 2013, the EPA finalized
its first round of designations for the
2010 primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (78
FR 47191). In the 2013 action, the EPA
designated 29 areas in 16 states as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, including a portion of
Muscatine County in Iowa. The
designation was based on air quality
monitoring data from 2009–2011
showing violations of the NAAQS. The
EPA’s initial round of designations for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS including the
Muscatine nonattainment area (NAA)
became effective on October 4, 2013.
Pursuant to CAA sections 172(a)(2) and
192(a), the maximum attainment date
for the Muscatine NAA is October 4,
2018, five years after the effective date
of the final action designating the area
as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
3960
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Proposed Determination
A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory
Provisions
Section 179(c)(1) of the CAA requires
the EPA to determine whether a
nonattainment area attained an
applicable standard by the applicable
attainment date based on the area’s air
quality as of the attainment date.
A determination of whether an area’s
air quality meets applicable standards is
generally based upon the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured
data gathered at established state and
local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in
a nonattainment area and entered into
the EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS)
database. Data from ambient air
monitors operated by state and local
agencies in compliance with the EPA
monitoring requirements must be
submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies
annually certify that these data are
accurate to the best of their knowledge.
All data are reviewed to determine the
area’s air quality status in accordance
with 40 CFR part 50, appendix T (for
SO2). In general, for SO2 EPA does not
rely exclusively on monitoring data to
determine whether the NAAQS is met
unless it has been demonstrated that the
monitors were appropriately sited to
record expected maximum ambient
concentrations of SO2 in an area.
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR
50.17 and in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix T, the 2010 1-hour
annual SO2 standard is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site
when the design value is less than or
equal to 75 ppb. Design values are
calculated by computing the three-year
average of the annual 99th percentile
daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations. When calculating 1hour primary standard design values,
the calculated design values are
rounded to the nearest whole number or
1 ppb by convention. An SO2 1-hour
primary standard design value is valid
if it encompasses three consecutive
calendar years of complete data. A year
is considered complete when all four
quarters are complete, and a quarter is
complete when at least 75 percent of the
sampling days are complete. A sampling
day is considered complete if 75 percent
of the hourly concentration values are
reported; this includes data affected by
exceptional events that have been
approved for exclusion by the
Administrator.
B. Monitoring Network Considerations
Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA
requires states to establish and operate
air monitoring networks to compile data
on ambient air quality for all criteria
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
pollutants. The EPA’s monitoring
requirements are specified by regulation
in 40 CFR part 58. These requirements
are applicable to state, and where
delegated, local air monitoring agencies
that operate criteria pollutant monitors.
In section 4.4 of appendix D to 40
CFR part 58, the EPA specifies
minimum monitoring requirements for
SO2 to operate at SLAMS. SLAMS
produce data that are eligible for
comparison with the NAAQS, and
therefore, the monitor must be an
approved Federal reference method
(FRM) or Federal equivalent method
(FEM) monitor.
The minimum number of required
SO2 SLAMS is described in sections
4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of appendix D to 40 CFR
part 58. According to section 4.4.2, the
minimum number of required SO2
monitoring sites is determined by the
population weighted emissions index
for each state’s core based statistical
area. Section 4.4.3 describes additional
monitors that may be required by an
EPA regional administrator.
Under 40 CFR 58.10, states are
required to submit annual monitoring
network plans (AMNP) for ambient air
monitoring networks for approval by the
EPA. Within the Muscatine NAA, the
State is responsible for assuring that
each monitoring site meets air quality
monitoring requirements. Iowa submits
an AMNP to the EPA that describes the
various monitoring sites operated by the
State. Each AMNP discusses the status
of the air monitoring network as
required under 40 CFR 58.10 and
addresses the operation and
maintenance of the air monitoring
network in the previous year. The EPA
regularly reviews these AMNPs for
compliance with the applicable
reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
58. With the EPA’s approval of Iowa’s
most recent AMNP, the State has met
the applicable minimum monitoring
requirements.1
The EPA also conducts regular
‘‘technical systems audits’’ (TSAs)
during which we review and inspect
ambient air monitoring programs to
assess compliance with applicable
regulations concerning the collection,
analysis, validation, and reporting of
ambient air quality data.
During the 2015–2017 data period,
Iowa operated three SO2 SLAMS in the
Muscatine SO2 NAA: Greenwood
Cemetery (AQS ID 19–139–0016); High
School East Campus (AQS ID 19–139–
0019); and Musser Park (AQS ID 19–
139–0020).
1 EPA’s letter approving Iowa’s 2021 monitoring
network plan dated December 2, 2021 is included
in the docket for this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. Data Considerations and Proposed
Determination
CAA section 179(c)(1) requires the
Agency to ‘‘determine, based on the
area’s air quality as of the attainment
date, whether the area attained the
standard by that date.’’ The EPA first
assessed what air quality information
was available related to making a
determination of attainment by the
attainment date for the Muscatine area.
The EPA chose to employ a weight-ofevidence approach for making this
determination because the EPA does not
have any analysis (including modeling)
associated with the monitor siting to
demonstrate that the monitors record
maximum ambient SO2 concentrations
in the NAA, nor does EPA have
modeling of actual emissions to support
a determination based on modeled
ambient concentrations whether the
area attained the NAAQS by the
attainment date. The available modeling
of permitted allowable emissions in the
area, as discussed later in this
document, does not on its own provide
a basis for determining whether the area
attained by the attainment date. Thus,
EPA relied upon SO2 emissions data
and trends, relevant air monitoring data
and trends, SO2 monitoring data
incorporated with local meteorological
data, as well as available modeling
information in order to make its
determination under CAA section
179(c)(1). The EPA believes our analysis
of multiple types of air-quality related
information to support our
determination is consistent with section
179(c)(1)’s direction to determine the
area’s air quality as of the attainment
date. Further detail on EPA’s weight-ofevidence analysis is contained in the
technical support document (TSD)
included in the docket for this action.
i. Emissions Information
There are four facilities that emit or
have historically emitted SO2 located in
or near the Muscatine NAA. Three are
located within the nonattainment area—
Grain Processing Corporation (GPC),
Muscatine Power and Water (MPW),
and Monsanto. Louisa Generating
Station (LGS) is located south of the
nonattainment area. Table 1 provides
the annual emissions from 2011–2020
from each individual source along with
the total combined emissions among the
four facilities. In the 2011–2015
timeframe, GPC was the largest SO2
source in the Muscatine area, with the
majority of SO2 emissions attributed to
GPC’s boilers using coal. A fuel switch
at GPC’s coal-fired boilers to natural gas
occurred on July 14, 2015, and this
change led to large reductions of SO2
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
3961
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules
emissions at GPC. Prior to 2018,
Monsanto was fueled primarily by coal,
with SO2 emissions associated with its
main boiler. As required by a
construction permit, Monsanto
converted its coal-fired boiler to use
only natural gas in 2018 which
eliminated nearly all SO2 emissions
from Monsanto.
The EPA first evaluated annual SO2
emissions trends within the Muscatine
nonattainment area. By 2017, total
annual emissions in the Muscatine area
had dropped approximately 72% from
2014 (24,181 tons per year (tpy) in 2014
to 6,781 tpy in 2017). Much of the
reduction in emissions can be attributed
to GPC’s fuel conversion to natural gas
in July of 2015, evident by the more
than 50% reduction in annual SO2
emissions at GPC from 2014 (13,075 tpy)
to 2015 (6,191 tpy) and further
reductions to below 200 tpy in 2016 and
2017. Overall, GPC’s annual SO2
emissions were reduced by 98.7% from
2014 to 2017.
In addition to emissions decreases
within the nonattainment area, the EPA
also looked at emissions at LGS, the
nearby source located outside the
nonattainment area. In the Louisa
County Data Requirements Rule (DRR)
modeling,2 Iowa modeled LGS using its
permitted allowable rate of 4,270.89 lbs/
hour,3 which would correspond to an
annual total of 18,706 tpy. Actual
annual emissions at LGS during the
2015–2017 timeframe ranged between
5,129 tpy and 6,098 tpy, significantly
below the annual total of 18,706 tpy that
corresponded with modeled attainment.
In addition, the actual maximum hourly
emission rate at LGS since 2011, as
reported to EPA Clean Air Markets
Division (CAMD) database 4 is 4,014.7
lb/hr, which is also below the 1-hour
modeled emission rate.
TABLE 1—SO2 EMISSIONS (TONS) FROM 2011 TO 2019 FOR SOURCES WITHIN AND NEARBY THE MUSCATINE
NONATTAINMENT AREA. EMISSIONS ARE FROM EPA’S NATIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY (NEI)
Source
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
GPC ............................
MPW ...........................
Monsanto ....................
Louisa ..................
11,970
2,374
537
7,306
11,640
2,015
543
8,743
12,761
2,169
469
8,285
13,075
1,821
502
8,783
6,191
1,714
402
6,098
187
1,769
349
5,129
173
1,167
208
5,233
84
1,458
∼0
7,332
89
1,715
∼0
5,286
Total .............
22,187
22,941
23,684
24,181
14,405
7,434
6,781
8,874
7,090
EPA’s evaluation of emissions at
sources within and outside of the
nonattainment area indicate significant
reductions in emissions in the 2015–
2017 timeframe compared to pre-2015
emissions.
ii. Monitoring Data
Under 40 CFR 58.15, monitoring
agencies must certify, on an annual
basis, data collected by FRM or FEMs at
all SLAMS, including special purpose
monitors, that meet EPA quality
assurance requirements. In doing so,
monitoring agencies must certify that
the previous year of ambient
concentration and quality assurance
data are completely submitted to AQS
and that the ambient concentration data
are accurate to the best of their
knowledge. Iowa annually certifies that
the data it submits to AQS are quality
assured, including data collected at
monitoring sites in the Muscatine SO2
NAA.
For the Muscatine SO2 NAA the
applicable attainment date is October 4,
2018. In accordance with appendix T to
40 CFR part 50, where determinations of
SO2 NAAQS compliance may be made
based on well-sited air quality monitors,
compliance with the NAAQS is based
on three consecutive calendar years of
data. The three calendar year period
preceding the attainment date for the
Muscatine SO2 NAA is January 1, 2015December 31, 2017.
The 3-year design values of 1-hour
SO2 from 2011 through 2020 for the
three Muscatine area monitors are
provided in Table 2 and the annual 99th
percentile of 1-hour SO2 concentrations
are shown in Table 3. All monitor
violations occur before the 2015–2017
timeframe, with all three monitors
showing violations from 2011–2016. No
monitor violation of the 3-year design
value has occurred since 2016, with the
largest of the three 2015–2017 1-hour
SO2 design values of 65 ppb at the
Musser Park site. The trends indicated
in the monitored design values are
consistent with EPA’s evaluation of the
emissions trends discussed above. As
emission reductions were implemented
at the sources in the nonattainment area,
SO2 concentrations recorded at the
area’s air quality monitors decreased.
Specifically, coal combustion at GPC
ceased in mid-2015 and coal
combustion at Monsanto ceased in late
2017. Significant decreases in 1-hour
daily maximum SO2 concentrations at
the air quality monitors are consistent
with that timeline. While the most
recent complete and quality-assured
design values (2018–2020) for the
Greenwood Cemetery, High School East
Campus, and Musser Park sites (15, 18,
and 20 ppb, respectively) were recorded
after the area’s attainment date, they
indicate the effectiveness of the area’s
control measures. These design values
are no greater than 27% of the level of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUES (ppb) FOR THE 2010 1-HOUR SO2 NAAQS FOR THE MUSCATINE MONITORING SITES
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Site name
Greenwood Cemetery (19–139–
0016) ............................................
High School E Campus (19–139–
0019) ............................................
2011–2013
2012–2014
2013–2015
2014–2016
2015–2017
2016–2018
2017–2019
2018–2020
..................
101
97
77
45
20
17
15
I.................. I.................. I
2 EPA relied on the DRR modeling submitted by
Iowa to designate Louisa County, containing LGS,
as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in December 2017 (83 FR 1098).
3 The 1-hour SO modeling rate used for LGS was
2
developed from the current 30-day rolling permit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
128
I
84
I
42
I
limit and actual emissions following the approach
outlined in the EPA’s 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour
SO2 Nonattainment Area State Implementation
Plans.
4 https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
22
I
21
I
18
3962
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUES (ppb) FOR THE 2010 1-HOUR SO2 NAAQS FOR THE MUSCATINE MONITORING SITES—
Continued
Site name
2011–2013
2012–2014
2013–2015
2014–2016
2015–2017
2016–2018
2017–2019
2018–2020
217
194
158
113
65
34
25
20
Musser Park (19–139–0020) ...........
TABLE 3—ANNUAL 99TH PERCENTILE OF 1-HOUR DAILY MAXIMUM SO2 CONCENTRATIONS (ppb) MUSCATINE MONITORING
SITES
Site name
2013
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Greenwood Cemetery (19–139–
0016) ............................................
High School E Campus (19–139–
0019) ............................................
Musser Park (19–139–0020) ...........
Jkt 256001
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
117
91
24
20
15
16
14
147
179
161
179
75
116
30
45
20
35
16
24
25
16
13
20
iv. Modeling Information
The EPA considered relying on two
separate modeling demonstrations for
the Muscatine area. Modeling performed
by the State of Iowa for purposes of the
control strategy and attainment
demonstration for the area was
16:01 Jan 25, 2022
2015
84
iii. Meteorology
The EPA does not have conclusive
evidence to support that the monitors
are sited in the area of maximum
ambient SO2 concentrations. EPA would
typically rely on the siting analysis
performed to originally site the monitors
or modeling of actual emissions to
demonstrate the monitors are sited in
the area of maximum concentrations.
There is not a specific analysis
associated with the siting of the
monitors nor does EPA have access to
modeling of actual emissions for sources
in or near the nonattainment area to
make such a determination. In the
absence of that information, EPA has
also evaluated local meteorology along
with the monitored SO2 values to
evaluate the likelihood of maximum
ambient concentrations occurring in
locations that the monitors could not
record. Hourly wind speeds and
direction were collected from the
Muscatine Airport, which is located
approximately 8 kilometers southwest
of GPC and the Musser Park and High
School SO2 monitors. The hourly winds
were combined into a dataset with the
coinciding one hour monitored SO2
concentrations and plotted using SO2
pollution roses. This analysis provides
information to help determine from
where (and potentially what source) the
monitored impacts were coming. In
summary, the monitors appear to be
positioned in downwind areas of
relatively high impacts as indicated by
pollution roses. Full details of the local
meteorology analysis and pollution
roses are provided in the TSD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2014
submitted to EPA in May 2016. EPA
later approved the attainment plan and
modeling in a final action in November
2020 (85 FR 73218). That final action
has since been remanded without
vacatur to EPA.5 The State of Iowa also
submitted modeling pursuant to the SO2
DRR for LGS in January 2017. This DRR
modeling was the basis for EPA’s Round
3 designation of Attainment/
Unclassifiable for Louisa County
(containing LGS) in December 2017 (83
FR 1098). Both sets of modeling rely on
permitted allowable emissions rates 6 7
that were in place by the October 4,
2018, attainment date and were
previously found by EPA to demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS as noted
above. However, the EPA is not relying
on Iowa’s attainment demonstration
modeling as a basis for our proposed
determination, because that modeling
may be revisited as part of the EPA’s
reconsideration action per the D.C.
Circuit’s remand of EPA’s approval of
Iowa’s attainment plan. Rather, as
discussed above, we are relying on the
DRR modeling to provide a comparison
between the much higher modeled
emission rates at the sources and the
actual recorded emissions to provide
additional evidence that the entire area
was attaining the NAAQs as of October
4, 2018.
5 The final approval action was challenged in the
D.C. Cir. on January 15, 2021 and was placed in
abeyance on February 3, 2021. Sierra Club v. EPA,
No. 21–1022 (D.C. Cir.). EPA filed an unopposed
motion to the court for a voluntary remand without
vacatur and indicated that EPA would take a final
reconsideration action no later than December 1,
2023. The D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s motion on
December 17, 2021.
6 The permits containing the emissions limits also
contain exemptions for periods of startup,
shutdown, and cleaning.
7 Monsanto was modeled with actual emissions
for the Louisa County DRR modeling
demonstration.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
v. Conclusion
In sum, and as discussed further in
the TSD, we propose to find that the
weight of the available evidence
indicates that the Muscatine area
attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
the 2015–2017 timeframe by the October
4, 2018 attainment date. Specifically,
the significant reductions in emissions
during the relevant time period from
sources within the nonattainment area
and a nearby source outside the
nonattainment area, coupled with
corresponding decreased monitored SO2
concentrations within the
nonattainment area during that same
time period lead us to our proposed
determination that the area attained by
its attainment date. Local meteorological
data help confirm that the air quality
monitors are unlikely to have missed
high concentrations, and the available
modeling information and emissions
data of the nearby LGS source (which
may not be reflected in the air quality
monitoring data from within the
nonattainment area) also supports the
EPA’s determination, as actual historical
emissions from that source during the
relevant time period were significantly
below the emissions that were modeled
to be consistent with attainment of the
NAAQS.
IV. Proposed Action and Request for
Public Comment
The EPA conducted a weight-ofevidence analysis, described in detail
above and in the TSD, to determine if
the Muscatine SO2 nonattainment area
attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
by the October 4, 2018 attainment date
by evaluating all available technical
information and data relevant to the SO2
air quality (e.g., emissions, monitoring,
meteorological data, and modeling) in
the Muscatine, Iowa, area. Based on the
analysis and information presented in
this document and the TSD contained in
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
the docket for this action, the EPA
proposes to determine that the
Muscatine SO2 NAA attained the 2010
1-hour SO2 standard by the applicable
attainment date of October 4, 2018,
consistent with CAA section 179(c)(1).
In addition, this action, if finalized,
will address EPA’s obligation under a
consent decree in Center for Biological
Diversity, et al. v. Regan, which
establishes a deadline of March 31, 2022
for the EPA to determine under CAA
section 179(c) whether the Muscatine
County SO2 nonattainment area attained
the NAAQS by the October 4, 2018
attainment date.8
This proposed action does not
constitute a redesignation of the
Muscatine SO2 NAA to attainment for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS under
CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have
not yet approved a maintenance plan for
the area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA and have not
determined that the area has met the
other CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)
requirements for redesignation. The
classification and designation status in
40 CFR part 81 will remain
nonattainment until the EPA has
determined that Iowa has met the CAA
requirements for redesignation to
attainment for the Muscatine SO2 NAA.
This is a proposed action and we are
soliciting comments on this proposed
action. Final rulemaking will occur after
consideration of any comments.
V. Environmental Justice Concerns
When the EPA establishes a new or
revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the
EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as
either nonattainment, attainment, or
unclassifiable. Area designations
address environmental justice concerns
by ensuring that the public is properly
informed about the air quality in an
area.
The EPA utilized the EJSCREEN tool
to evaluate environmental and
demographic indicators within the area.
The tool outputs report is contained in
the docket for this action. While the
EPA’s EJSCREEN tool demonstrates that
demographic indicators are consistent
or lower than national averages, there
are vulnerable populations in the area
including low-income populations and
persons over 64 years of age.
This action addresses EPA’s
determination, as required by the CAA,
8 Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Regan,
No. 3:20–cv–05436–EMC (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
of whether the Muscatine County, Iowa,
area attained the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS by the relevant attainment date.
This action proposes to determine an
area has attained the NAAQS by the
relevant attainment date, but it does not
change the geographic status of the area
nor does it impose additional or modify
existing requirements on sources. Based
on the information presented in this
document and the associated technical
support document, the EPA is proposing
to determine that the air quality in the
Muscatine County area is attaining the
NAAQS. For these reasons, this
proposed action does not result in
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority populations, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action proposes to determine an
area has attained the NAAQS by the
relevant attainment date and does not
impose additional or modify existing
requirements. For that reason, this
action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTA) because this
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
3963
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards; and
• This action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority populations, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples,
as specified in Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
basis for this determination is contained
in section V of this action,
‘‘Environmental Justice Concerns.’’
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: January 20, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Q—Iowa
■
2. Revise § 52.834 to read as follows:
§ 52.834
Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.
(a) Approval. On April 21, 1997, the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR) submitted a maintenance plan
and redesignation request for the
Muscatine County nonattainment area
for the 1971 SO2 national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). The
maintenance plan and redesignation
request satisfy all applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act.
(b) Determination of attainment by the
attainment date. As of [date 30 days
after date of publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register], the EPA has
determined that the Muscatine, Iowa,
SO2 nonattainment area has attained the
2010 1-hour SO2 primary NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of October 4,
2018.
[FR Doc. 2022–01497 Filed 1–25–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3958-3963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01497]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2021-0932; FRL-9461-01-R7]
Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Determination of Attainment by the
Attainment Date for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Muscatine sulfur dioxide (SO2)
nonattainment area attained the 2010 1-
[[Page 3959]]
hour SO2 primary national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018, based
upon a weight-of-evidence analysis using available air quality
information. Additional analysis of the attainment determination is
provided in a Technical Support Document (TSD) included in the docket
to this proposed rulemaking. This action, if finalized, will address
the EPA's obligation under a consent decree which establishes a
deadline of March 31, 2022 for the EPA to determine under Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 179(c) whether the Muscatine SO2 nonattainment
area attained the NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2021-0932 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Heitman, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7664; email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. Background
A. The 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
B. Designations, Classifications, and Attainment Dates for the
2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
III. Proposed Determination
A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
B. Monitoring Network Considerations
C. Data Considerations and Proposed Determination
i. Emissions Information
ii. Monitoring Data
iii. Meteorology
iv. Modeling Information
v. Conclusion
IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
V. Environmental Justice Concerns
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2021-
0932, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
II. Background
A. The 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA has established primary and
secondary NAAQS for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as
``criteria pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to
determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be
established. The primary NAAQS represent ambient air quality standards
the attainment and maintenance of which the EPA has determined,
including a margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public
health. The secondary NAAQS represent ambient air quality standards the
attainment and maintenance of which the EPA has determined are
requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in
the ambient air.
Under the CAA, the EPA must establish a NAAQS for SO2.
SO2 is primarily released to the atmosphere through the
burning of fossil fuels by power plants and other industrial
facilities. SO2 is also emitted from industrial processes
including metal extraction from ore and heavy equipment that burn fuel
with a high sulfur content. Short-term exposure to SO2 can
damage the human respiratory system and increase breathing
difficulties. Small children and people with respiratory conditions,
such as asthma, are more sensitive to the effects of SO2.
Sulfur oxides at high concentrations can also react with compounds to
form small particulates that can penetrate deeply into the lungs and
cause health problems.
The EPA first established primary SO2 standards in 1971
at 0.14 parts per million (ppm) over a 24-hour averaging period and 0.3
ppm over an annual averaging period (36 FR 8186, April 30, 1971). In
June 2010, the EPA revised the NAAQS for SO2 to provide
increased protection of public health, providing for revocation of the
1971 primary annual and 24-hour SO2 standards for most areas
of the country following area designations under the new NAAQS. The
2010 NAAQS is 75 parts per billion (ppb) (equivalent to 0.075 ppm) over
a 1-hour averaging period (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). A violation of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS occurs when the annual 99th
percentile of ambient daily maximum 1-hour average SO2
concentrations, averaged over a 3-year period, exceeds 75 ppb.
B. Designations, Classifications, and Attainment Dates for the 2010 SO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Following promulgation of any new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation
as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS.
On August 5, 2013, the EPA finalized its first round of
designations for the 2010 primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (78 FR
47191). In the 2013 action, the EPA designated 29 areas in 16 states as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including a portion of
Muscatine County in Iowa. The designation was based on air quality
monitoring data from 2009-2011 showing violations of the NAAQS. The
EPA's initial round of designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
including the Muscatine nonattainment area (NAA) became effective on
October 4, 2013. Pursuant to CAA sections 172(a)(2) and 192(a), the
maximum attainment date for the Muscatine NAA is October 4, 2018, five
years after the effective date of the final action designating the area
as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
[[Page 3960]]
III. Proposed Determination
A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
Section 179(c)(1) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
a nonattainment area attained an applicable standard by the applicable
attainment date based on the area's air quality as of the attainment
date.
A determination of whether an area's air quality meets applicable
standards is generally based upon the most recent three years of
complete, quality-assured data gathered at established state and local
air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area and entered
into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. Data from ambient air
monitors operated by state and local agencies in compliance with the
EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring
agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of
their knowledge. All data are reviewed to determine the area's air
quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix T (for
SO2). In general, for SO2 EPA does not rely
exclusively on monitoring data to determine whether the NAAQS is met
unless it has been demonstrated that the monitors were appropriately
sited to record expected maximum ambient concentrations of
SO2 in an area.
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.17 and in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix T, the 2010 1-hour annual SO2 standard is
met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the design value is
less than or equal to 75 ppb. Design values are calculated by computing
the three-year average of the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-
hour average concentrations. When calculating 1-hour primary standard
design values, the calculated design values are rounded to the nearest
whole number or 1 ppb by convention. An SO2 1-hour primary
standard design value is valid if it encompasses three consecutive
calendar years of complete data. A year is considered complete when all
four quarters are complete, and a quarter is complete when at least 75
percent of the sampling days are complete. A sampling day is considered
complete if 75 percent of the hourly concentration values are reported;
this includes data affected by exceptional events that have been
approved for exclusion by the Administrator.
B. Monitoring Network Considerations
Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA requires states to establish and
operate air monitoring networks to compile data on ambient air quality
for all criteria pollutants. The EPA's monitoring requirements are
specified by regulation in 40 CFR part 58. These requirements are
applicable to state, and where delegated, local air monitoring agencies
that operate criteria pollutant monitors.
In section 4.4 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, the EPA specifies
minimum monitoring requirements for SO2 to operate at SLAMS.
SLAMS produce data that are eligible for comparison with the NAAQS, and
therefore, the monitor must be an approved Federal reference method
(FRM) or Federal equivalent method (FEM) monitor.
The minimum number of required SO2 SLAMS is described in
sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. According to
section 4.4.2, the minimum number of required SO2 monitoring
sites is determined by the population weighted emissions index for each
state's core based statistical area. Section 4.4.3 describes additional
monitors that may be required by an EPA regional administrator.
Under 40 CFR 58.10, states are required to submit annual monitoring
network plans (AMNP) for ambient air monitoring networks for approval
by the EPA. Within the Muscatine NAA, the State is responsible for
assuring that each monitoring site meets air quality monitoring
requirements. Iowa submits an AMNP to the EPA that describes the
various monitoring sites operated by the State. Each AMNP discusses the
status of the air monitoring network as required under 40 CFR 58.10 and
addresses the operation and maintenance of the air monitoring network
in the previous year. The EPA regularly reviews these AMNPs for
compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
58. With the EPA's approval of Iowa's most recent AMNP, the State has
met the applicable minimum monitoring requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's letter approving Iowa's 2021 monitoring network plan
dated December 2, 2021 is included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also conducts regular ``technical systems audits'' (TSAs)
during which we review and inspect ambient air monitoring programs to
assess compliance with applicable regulations concerning the
collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality
data.
During the 2015-2017 data period, Iowa operated three
SO2 SLAMS in the Muscatine SO2 NAA: Greenwood
Cemetery (AQS ID 19-139-0016); High School East Campus (AQS ID 19-139-
0019); and Musser Park (AQS ID 19-139-0020).
C. Data Considerations and Proposed Determination
CAA section 179(c)(1) requires the Agency to ``determine, based on
the area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard by that date.'' The EPA first assessed what air
quality information was available related to making a determination of
attainment by the attainment date for the Muscatine area. The EPA chose
to employ a weight-of-evidence approach for making this determination
because the EPA does not have any analysis (including modeling)
associated with the monitor siting to demonstrate that the monitors
record maximum ambient SO2 concentrations in the NAA, nor
does EPA have modeling of actual emissions to support a determination
based on modeled ambient concentrations whether the area attained the
NAAQS by the attainment date. The available modeling of permitted
allowable emissions in the area, as discussed later in this document,
does not on its own provide a basis for determining whether the area
attained by the attainment date. Thus, EPA relied upon SO2
emissions data and trends, relevant air monitoring data and trends,
SO2 monitoring data incorporated with local meteorological
data, as well as available modeling information in order to make its
determination under CAA section 179(c)(1). The EPA believes our
analysis of multiple types of air-quality related information to
support our determination is consistent with section 179(c)(1)'s
direction to determine the area's air quality as of the attainment
date. Further detail on EPA's weight-of-evidence analysis is contained
in the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this
action.
i. Emissions Information
There are four facilities that emit or have historically emitted
SO2 located in or near the Muscatine NAA. Three are located
within the nonattainment area--Grain Processing Corporation (GPC),
Muscatine Power and Water (MPW), and Monsanto. Louisa Generating
Station (LGS) is located south of the nonattainment area. Table 1
provides the annual emissions from 2011-2020 from each individual
source along with the total combined emissions among the four
facilities. In the 2011-2015 timeframe, GPC was the largest
SO2 source in the Muscatine area, with the majority of
SO2 emissions attributed to GPC's boilers using coal. A fuel
switch at GPC's coal-fired boilers to natural gas occurred on July 14,
2015, and this change led to large reductions of SO2
[[Page 3961]]
emissions at GPC. Prior to 2018, Monsanto was fueled primarily by coal,
with SO2 emissions associated with its main boiler. As
required by a construction permit, Monsanto converted its coal-fired
boiler to use only natural gas in 2018 which eliminated nearly all
SO2 emissions from Monsanto.
The EPA first evaluated annual SO2 emissions trends
within the Muscatine nonattainment area. By 2017, total annual
emissions in the Muscatine area had dropped approximately 72% from 2014
(24,181 tons per year (tpy) in 2014 to 6,781 tpy in 2017). Much of the
reduction in emissions can be attributed to GPC's fuel conversion to
natural gas in July of 2015, evident by the more than 50% reduction in
annual SO2 emissions at GPC from 2014 (13,075 tpy) to 2015
(6,191 tpy) and further reductions to below 200 tpy in 2016 and 2017.
Overall, GPC's annual SO2 emissions were reduced by 98.7%
from 2014 to 2017.
In addition to emissions decreases within the nonattainment area,
the EPA also looked at emissions at LGS, the nearby source located
outside the nonattainment area. In the Louisa County Data Requirements
Rule (DRR) modeling,\2\ Iowa modeled LGS using its permitted allowable
rate of 4,270.89 lbs/hour,\3\ which would correspond to an annual total
of 18,706 tpy. Actual annual emissions at LGS during the 2015-2017
timeframe ranged between 5,129 tpy and 6,098 tpy, significantly below
the annual total of 18,706 tpy that corresponded with modeled
attainment. In addition, the actual maximum hourly emission rate at LGS
since 2011, as reported to EPA Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD)
database \4\ is 4,014.7 lb/hr, which is also below the 1-hour modeled
emission rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA relied on the DRR modeling submitted by Iowa to
designate Louisa County, containing LGS, as attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in December
2017 (83 FR 1098).
\3\ The 1-hour SO2 modeling rate used for LGS was
developed from the current 30-day rolling permit limit and actual
emissions following the approach outlined in the EPA's 2014 Guidance
for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plans.
\4\ https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
Table 1--SO2 Emissions (tons) From 2011 to 2019 for Sources Within and Nearby the Muscatine Nonattainment Area. Emissions Are From EPA's National
Emissions Inventory (NEI)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPC......................................... 11,970 11,640 12,761 13,075 6,191 187 173 84 89
MPW......................................... 2,374 2,015 2,169 1,821 1,714 1,769 1,167 1,458 1,715
Monsanto.................................... 537 543 469 502 402 349 208 ~0 ~0
Louisa.................................. 7,306 8,743 8,285 8,783 6,098 5,129 5,233 7,332 5,286
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 22,187 22,941 23,684 24,181 14,405 7,434 6,781 8,874 7,090
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's evaluation of emissions at sources within and outside of the
nonattainment area indicate significant reductions in emissions in the
2015-2017 timeframe compared to pre-2015 emissions.
ii. Monitoring Data
Under 40 CFR 58.15, monitoring agencies must certify, on an annual
basis, data collected by FRM or FEMs at all SLAMS, including special
purpose monitors, that meet EPA quality assurance requirements. In
doing so, monitoring agencies must certify that the previous year of
ambient concentration and quality assurance data are completely
submitted to AQS and that the ambient concentration data are accurate
to the best of their knowledge. Iowa annually certifies that the data
it submits to AQS are quality assured, including data collected at
monitoring sites in the Muscatine SO2 NAA.
For the Muscatine SO2 NAA the applicable attainment date
is October 4, 2018. In accordance with appendix T to 40 CFR part 50,
where determinations of SO2 NAAQS compliance may be made
based on well-sited air quality monitors, compliance with the NAAQS is
based on three consecutive calendar years of data. The three calendar
year period preceding the attainment date for the Muscatine
SO2 NAA is January 1, 2015-December 31, 2017.
The 3-year design values of 1-hour SO2 from 2011 through
2020 for the three Muscatine area monitors are provided in Table 2 and
the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour SO2 concentrations are
shown in Table 3. All monitor violations occur before the 2015-2017
timeframe, with all three monitors showing violations from 2011-2016.
No monitor violation of the 3-year design value has occurred since
2016, with the largest of the three 2015-2017 1-hour SO2
design values of 65 ppb at the Musser Park site. The trends indicated
in the monitored design values are consistent with EPA's evaluation of
the emissions trends discussed above. As emission reductions were
implemented at the sources in the nonattainment area, SO2
concentrations recorded at the area's air quality monitors decreased.
Specifically, coal combustion at GPC ceased in mid-2015 and coal
combustion at Monsanto ceased in late 2017. Significant decreases in 1-
hour daily maximum SO2 concentrations at the air quality
monitors are consistent with that timeline. While the most recent
complete and quality-assured design values (2018-2020) for the
Greenwood Cemetery, High School East Campus, and Musser Park sites (15,
18, and 20 ppb, respectively) were recorded after the area's attainment
date, they indicate the effectiveness of the area's control measures.
These design values are no greater than 27% of the level of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.
Table 2--Design Values (ppb) for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS for the Muscatine Monitoring Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018 2017-2019 2018-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenwood Cemetery (19-139-0016)........................ .......... 101 97 77 45 20 17 15
High School E Campus (19-139-0019)...................... .......... .......... 128 84 42 22 21 18
[[Page 3962]]
Musser Park (19-139-0020)............................... 217 194 158 113 65 34 25 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Annual 99th Percentile of 1-Hour Daily Maximum SO2 Concentrations (ppb) Muscatine Monitoring Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenwood Cemetery (19-139-0016)........................ 84 117 91 24 20 15 16 14
High School E Campus (19-139-0019)...................... 147 161 75 30 20 16 25 13
Musser Park (19-139-0020)............................... 179 179 116 45 35 24 16 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Meteorology
The EPA does not have conclusive evidence to support that the
monitors are sited in the area of maximum ambient SO2
concentrations. EPA would typically rely on the siting analysis
performed to originally site the monitors or modeling of actual
emissions to demonstrate the monitors are sited in the area of maximum
concentrations. There is not a specific analysis associated with the
siting of the monitors nor does EPA have access to modeling of actual
emissions for sources in or near the nonattainment area to make such a
determination. In the absence of that information, EPA has also
evaluated local meteorology along with the monitored SO2
values to evaluate the likelihood of maximum ambient concentrations
occurring in locations that the monitors could not record. Hourly wind
speeds and direction were collected from the Muscatine Airport, which
is located approximately 8 kilometers southwest of GPC and the Musser
Park and High School SO2 monitors. The hourly winds were
combined into a dataset with the coinciding one hour monitored
SO2 concentrations and plotted using SO2
pollution roses. This analysis provides information to help determine
from where (and potentially what source) the monitored impacts were
coming. In summary, the monitors appear to be positioned in downwind
areas of relatively high impacts as indicated by pollution roses. Full
details of the local meteorology analysis and pollution roses are
provided in the TSD.
iv. Modeling Information
The EPA considered relying on two separate modeling demonstrations
for the Muscatine area. Modeling performed by the State of Iowa for
purposes of the control strategy and attainment demonstration for the
area was submitted to EPA in May 2016. EPA later approved the
attainment plan and modeling in a final action in November 2020 (85 FR
73218). That final action has since been remanded without vacatur to
EPA.\5\ The State of Iowa also submitted modeling pursuant to the
SO2 DRR for LGS in January 2017. This DRR modeling was the
basis for EPA's Round 3 designation of Attainment/Unclassifiable for
Louisa County (containing LGS) in December 2017 (83 FR 1098). Both sets
of modeling rely on permitted allowable emissions rates \6\ \7\ that
were in place by the October 4, 2018, attainment date and were
previously found by EPA to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS as noted
above. However, the EPA is not relying on Iowa's attainment
demonstration modeling as a basis for our proposed determination,
because that modeling may be revisited as part of the EPA's
reconsideration action per the D.C. Circuit's remand of EPA's approval
of Iowa's attainment plan. Rather, as discussed above, we are relying
on the DRR modeling to provide a comparison between the much higher
modeled emission rates at the sources and the actual recorded emissions
to provide additional evidence that the entire area was attaining the
NAAQs as of October 4, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The final approval action was challenged in the D.C. Cir. on
January 15, 2021 and was placed in abeyance on February 3, 2021.
Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 21-1022 (D.C. Cir.). EPA filed an unopposed
motion to the court for a voluntary remand without vacatur and
indicated that EPA would take a final reconsideration action no
later than December 1, 2023. The D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion
on December 17, 2021.
\6\ The permits containing the emissions limits also contain
exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and cleaning.
\7\ Monsanto was modeled with actual emissions for the Louisa
County DRR modeling demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Conclusion
In sum, and as discussed further in the TSD, we propose to find
that the weight of the available evidence indicates that the Muscatine
area attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the 2015-2017
timeframe by the October 4, 2018 attainment date. Specifically, the
significant reductions in emissions during the relevant time period
from sources within the nonattainment area and a nearby source outside
the nonattainment area, coupled with corresponding decreased monitored
SO2 concentrations within the nonattainment area during that
same time period lead us to our proposed determination that the area
attained by its attainment date. Local meteorological data help confirm
that the air quality monitors are unlikely to have missed high
concentrations, and the available modeling information and emissions
data of the nearby LGS source (which may not be reflected in the air
quality monitoring data from within the nonattainment area) also
supports the EPA's determination, as actual historical emissions from
that source during the relevant time period were significantly below
the emissions that were modeled to be consistent with attainment of the
NAAQS.
IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
The EPA conducted a weight-of-evidence analysis, described in
detail above and in the TSD, to determine if the Muscatine
SO2 nonattainment area attained the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date by
evaluating all available technical information and data relevant to the
SO2 air quality (e.g., emissions, monitoring, meteorological
data, and modeling) in the Muscatine, Iowa, area. Based on the analysis
and information presented in this document and the TSD contained in
[[Page 3963]]
the docket for this action, the EPA proposes to determine that the
Muscatine SO2 NAA attained the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018,
consistent with CAA section 179(c)(1).
In addition, this action, if finalized, will address EPA's
obligation under a consent decree in Center for Biological Diversity,
et al. v. Regan, which establishes a deadline of March 31, 2022 for the
EPA to determine under CAA section 179(c) whether the Muscatine County
SO2 nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the October 4,
2018 attainment date.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Regan, No. 3:20-
cv-05436-EMC (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed action does not constitute a redesignation of the
Muscatine SO2 NAA to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have not
yet approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA and have not determined that
the area has met the other CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements for
redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part
81 will remain nonattainment until the EPA has determined that Iowa has
met the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment for the
Muscatine SO2 NAA.
This is a proposed action and we are soliciting comments on this
proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any
comments.
V. Environmental Justice Concerns
When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires
the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment,
attainment, or unclassifiable. Area designations address environmental
justice concerns by ensuring that the public is properly informed about
the air quality in an area.
The EPA utilized the EJSCREEN tool to evaluate environmental and
demographic indicators within the area. The tool outputs report is
contained in the docket for this action. While the EPA's EJSCREEN tool
demonstrates that demographic indicators are consistent or lower than
national averages, there are vulnerable populations in the area
including low-income populations and persons over 64 years of age.
This action addresses EPA's determination, as required by the CAA,
of whether the Muscatine County, Iowa, area attained the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS by the relevant attainment date. This action
proposes to determine an area has attained the NAAQS by the relevant
attainment date, but it does not change the geographic status of the
area nor does it impose additional or modify existing requirements on
sources. Based on the information presented in this document and the
associated technical support document, the EPA is proposing to
determine that the air quality in the Muscatine County area is
attaining the NAAQS. For these reasons, this proposed action does not
result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations
and/or indigenous peoples.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action proposes to determine an area has attained the NAAQS by
the relevant attainment date and does not impose additional or modify
existing requirements. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
This action does not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations,
low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The basis for
this determination is contained in section V of this action,
``Environmental Justice Concerns.''
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: January 20, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Q--Iowa
0
2. Revise Sec. 52.834 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.834 Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.
(a) Approval. On April 21, 1997, the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR) submitted a maintenance plan and redesignation request
for the Muscatine County nonattainment area for the 1971 SO2
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The maintenance plan and
redesignation request satisfy all applicable requirements of the Clean
Air Act.
(b) Determination of attainment by the attainment date. As of [date
30 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register], the EPA has determined that the Muscatine, Iowa,
SO2 nonattainment area has attained the 2010 1-hour
SO2 primary NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
October 4, 2018.
[FR Doc. 2022-01497 Filed 1-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
