[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12087-12090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5824]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IA 058-1058a; FRL-6308-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the Iowa State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) which provides for the attainment and 
maintenance of the sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. This revision approves 
a state Administrative Consent Order (ACO) and Emission Control Plan 
(ECP) which requires reductions of SO2 emissions from 
certain major sources in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Approval of this SIP 
revision will make the state ACO and ECP Federally enforceable.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on May 10, 1999, without 
further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by April 12, 
1999. If adverse comment is received, the EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform 
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be addressed to Wayne Kaiser, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota 
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Copies of the state submittal(s) are available at the following 
addresses for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota 
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Air Docket 
(6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information 
by answering the following questions:
    What is a SIP?
    What is the NAAQS?
    What air quality problems occurred in Cedar Rapids, Iowa?
    How was the problem addressed?
    What is the control strategy?
    Is the SIP revision approvable?

[[Page 12088]]

    Additional information is contained in the state submittal and in 
the EPA Technical Support Document for this notice which can be 
obtained by contacting EPA at the address above.

What Is a SIP?

    Each state has a SIP containing rules, control measures, and 
strategies used to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The SIP is frequently 
updated by the state in order to maintain a current and effective air 
pollution control program, and to keep current with ongoing Federal 
requirements. The EPA must review and approve revisions to the state 
SIP. The Iowa SIP is published in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
Part 52, Subpart Q. The state of Iowa has submitted the control 
measures discussed below for approval in the Iowa SIP. Once measures 
have been approved into the SIP, the EPA has the authority to directly 
enforce the approved control measures.

What Is the NAAQS?

    The EPA has established ambient air quality standards for a number 
of pollutants, including SO2. These standards are set at 
levels to protect public health and welfare. The standards are 
published in 40 CFR Part 50. If ambient air monitors measure violations 
of the standard, states are required to identify the cause of the 
problem and to take measures which will bring the area back within the 
level of the NAAQS. The 24-hour NAAQS for SO2 is .14 ppm, 
not to be exceeded more than once per year.

What Air Quality Problems Occurred in Cedar Rapids, Iowa?

    In 1996 there were three exceedances; thus, two violations of the 
24-hour SO2 NAAQS were recorded at an ambient air monitor in 
downtown Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

How Was the Problem Addressed?

    The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) (Air Quality 
Bureau) and the local air agency (the Linn County Health Department), 
using air dispersion modeling, identified two sources which contributed 
to the NAAQS violations. These were the IES Utilities 6th Street 
Station and the Prairie Creek Station, both electric utility power 
plants. In addition, the modeling identified the potential for 
localized exceedances at the Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM) corn 
processing plant. Results of the modeling were used to establish 
emission reductions necessary to prevent actual or modeled violations 
of the SO2 NAAQS. The modeling was performed in accordance 
with EPA requirements. (A detailed discussion of the modeling protocol 
and results was provided in the state SIP submittal and is available 
for review upon request.)

What Is the Control Strategy?

    The IDNR negotiated enforceable emission limitations and other 
control measures, means, and techniques, as well as schedules and 
timetables for compliance, sufficient to ensure that the NAAQS for 
SO2 will be achieved and maintained in the future. These 
control measures were developed in conformance with the requirements of 
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart G--Control Strategy.
    These enforceable commitments have been incorporated into an ACO 
with IES Utilities, and into an ECP with ADM. These documents 
constitute the basis for the state's control strategy. The state has 
met the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart G--Control Strategy.
    The critical control strategy conditions for each source are 
summarized as follows:
    The IES Utilities 6th Street Station will operate at a reduced 
SO2 emission limit and install continuous emission 
monitoring (CEM) equipment. Allowable emissions will be reduced by 60 
percent. The Prairie Creek Station will operate at a reduced 
SO2 emission limit, build a new stack, increase the height 
of an existing stack in conformance with the EPA's stack height 
requirements at 40 CFR Part 51.100, and install CEMs. Allowable 
SO2 emissions will be reduced by 58 percent on Unit 3 and by 
50 percent on Unit 4. The ADM facility will operate with reduced 
SO2 emission limits on its boiler stacks and install wet 
scrubbers on two sources to control fugitive emissions.
    All sources have met the compliance schedules in their respective 
ACO and ECP.

Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?

    The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP 
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR section 51.102. The submittal 
also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. 
In addition, as explained above, and in more detail in the technical 
support document which is part of this notice, the revision meets the 
substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including 
section 110 and implementing regulations.

Final Action:

    The EPA is approving a revision to the Iowa SIP which requires 
source specific SO2 emission reductions which will result in 
attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS.
    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective May 10, 1999, 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
April 12, 1999.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then the EPA will publish a 
document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the 
rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in 
commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, 
the public is advised that this rule will be effective on May 10, 1999, 
and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

B. E.O. 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, the EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal Government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or the EPA consults with those governments. If the EPA 
complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires the EPA to provide to the 
OMB a description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires the EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''

[[Page 12089]]

    Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local, or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule.

C. E.O. 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that the 
EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must 
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule 
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to 
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866, 
and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that 
would have a disproportionate effect on children.

D. E.O. 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA consults with 
those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 
requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified 
section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the 
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal 
governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 
requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because SIP approvals under section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D of the 
CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements 
that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 
approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
state relationship under the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis 
would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of 
state action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning 
SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 
255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act'') signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, the 
EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent 
with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish 
a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs 
of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 
approves preexisting requirements under state or local law and imposes 
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect the agency promulgating the 
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to 
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the U.S. Comptroller General prior to publication 
of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 10, 1999. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: February 25, 1999.
Diane K. Callier,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.
    Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart Q--Iowa

    2. In Sec. 52.820, paragraph (d), EPA-approved state source-
specific permits, revise heading directly above table to

[[Page 12090]]

read EPA-Approved Iowa Source-Specific Permits, and add the entries for 
IES Utilities and Archer-Daniels-Midland to the end of the table to 
read as follows:


Sec. 52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) EPA-approved Iowa source-specific permits.

                                    EPA-Approved Iowa Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
          Name of source             Order/permit No.     effective     EPA approval date          Comment
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                    *                    *                  *
                                                          *
IES Utilities, Inc...............  98-AQ-20............     11/20/98  3/11/99 64 FR 12090.  SO2 Control Plan for
                                                                                             Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Archer-Daniels-Midland             SO2 Emission Control      9/14/98  3/11/99 64 FR 12090.  ADM Corn Processing
 Corporation.                       Plan.                                                    SO2 Control Plan
                                                                                             for Cedar Rapids,
                                                                                             Iowa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-5824 Filed 3-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P