[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 1, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41900-41903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14868]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0477; FRL-8448-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the state of Iowa for maintenance of the sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in 
Muscatine, Iowa.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 1, 2007, 
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 
31, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing 
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-0477, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: [email protected].
    3. Mail: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, 
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Heather 
Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development 
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2007-0477. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, 
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal 
holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents 
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in 
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at (913) 551-7039 or 
by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides 
additional information by addressing the following questions:

What is a SIP?
What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
What are the criteria for approval of a maintenance plan?
What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?
What is in the state's plan to maintain the standard?
What is being addressed in this document?
Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
What action is EPA taking?

What is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to 
develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that 
state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards 
established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under 
section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria 
pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, 
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to 
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.

[[Page 41901]]

    Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by 
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be 
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents 
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring 
networks, and modeling demonstrations.

What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the 
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations 
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. 
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public 
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking 
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the 
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide 
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed 
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are 
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by 
us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA 
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and 
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations 
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR 
outright but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we 
have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

What are the criteria for approval of a maintenance plan?

    The Clean Air Act requires maintenance plans for areas which are 
redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for a criteria pollutant. 
The requirements for the approval and revision of a maintenance plan 
are found in section 175A of the CAA. A maintenance plan must provide a 
demonstration of continued attainment for 10 years after redesignation, 
including the control measures relied upon, provide contingency 
measures for the prompt correction of any violation of the standard, 
provide for continued operation of an adequate ambient air quality 
monitoring network, provide a means of tracking the progress of the 
plan, and include the attainment emissions inventory. Section 175A(b) 
requires a revision to the initial maintenance plan to demonstrate 
continued attainment for 10 years after the initial 10-year period.

What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?

    Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is 
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state 
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we 
are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens 
are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in 
section 304 of the CAA.

What is in the state's plan to maintain the standard?

    Background: A portion of Muscatine County, Iowa, was designated 
nonattainment for the 24-hour SO2 NAAQS on March 10, 1994. 
An attainment demonstration and control strategy SIP were approved by 
EPA on December 1, 1997 (62 FR 63464). On March 19, 1998, EPA approved 
a maintenance plan for the area, finding that it met the requirements 
of section 175A of the Act, and redesignated the area from 
nonattainment to attainment (63 FR 13343). The SIP revision addressed 
below is a revision to this maintenance plan to address the requirement 
of section 175A(b) for a second ten-year maintenance plan.
    Emission Inventory: Maintenance of the SO2 standard in 
the Muscatine area was ensured through continued compliance with 
emission reductions requirements as prescribed in construction permits 
and incorporated and approved by EPA as revisions made to the SIP. 
These measures have been highly effective and attainment will continue 
to rely on ensuring that emissions are maintained at a level that is at 
or below current allowable emission rates. Past, current and projected 
emissions are included in the second 10-year plan. IDNR also reviewed 
county-wide point source emissions, on-road sources, non-road, and area 
sources into the current and projected level of SO2 
emissions. Projected levels of SO2 emissions show decreased 
levels with the exception of the area source inventory. This is due to 
predicted increase in gas stations and dry cleaners but the increase is 
more than off set by the decreases of other sectors. The emissions 
inventory was reviewed by EPA technical personnel and was found to be 
acceptable.
    Demonstration of Continued Attainment: The Iowa Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR) will continue to ensure the enforceable 
emission limitations and operating conditions at the facilities, 
included in the previous two federally-approved SIP revisions, are 
enforced as necessary. Based on a review of the SO2 ambient 
monitoring data collected since 1999, and an evaluation of predicted 
future SO2 emissions for the area, IDNR has demonstrated 
that no additional control measures are necessary to maintain the NAAQS 
in Muscatine. The maintenance plan contains a detailed description of 
emission limits and operating conditions at each facility which have 
resulted in maintenance of the SO2 standard.
    Contingency Measures: The first maintenance plan identified three 
facilities in the Muscatine area that were the primary source of 
SO2 emissions. IDNR negotiated emission reductions with the 
facilities and the reductions were incorporated into revised 
construction permits which were submitted as part of the section 110 
SIP revision and thus, were Federally enforceable. Contingency measures 
for the second 10-year maintenance plan include mechanisms for 
responding to monitored exceedances of the NAAQS and include reviewing 
and regulating the allowable emissions for new and modified sources; 
requiring reduction in emissions from sources contributing to an 
exceedance of the NAAQS; ambient air quality monitoring, and emissions 
monitoring. In the event of an exceedance of the NAAQS, IDNR will 
conduct an investigation of the major SO2 emitters in the 
area to determine if they are in compliance with permit conditions 
limiting SO2 emissions, and other applicable regulatory 
requirements. SO2 sources will be required to submit a 
written report within 60 days detailing their operations on the day of 
the exceedance if requested by the IDNR. (Violation of the 24-hour 
SO2 standard was the basis for the previous nonattainment 
designation for the area.) Owners and operators of sources emitting 
SO2 will be required to determine possible causes of excess 
emissions that may have contributed to the exceedance including 
malfunctions and upset conditions. The analysis will include an 
evaluation of the meteorological conditions prevailing at the time of 
the exceedance. Depending on the circumstances of the incident, other 
activities such as inspections, dispersions modeling, additional 
monitors, or proposing more stringent emission limitations may be 
necessary. The state commits to requiring implementation of any 
additional control measures no later than 24 months after a NAAQS

[[Page 41902]]

violation. Because the existing control strategy has resulted in 
readily quantifiable emissions reductions and has been adequate to 
prevent violations of the SO2 NAAQS for more than 10 years 
after redesignation, EPA concludes that these contingency measures to 
address any subsequent violations are adequate to meet the requirements 
of section 175A.
    Air Quality Monitoring: The current monitoring network operated by 
IDNR consists of three monitors. The Iowa SIP submittal proposed to 
discontinue two of these monitors as explained below. The Greenwood 
Cemetery monitoring site has never recorded an exceedance of the NAAQS 
for SO2 and the maximum values recorded at the site have 
declined in recent years. During the last full year of data collection 
(2005), the maximum value recorded at the site was 17% of the 24-hour 
NAAQS. The maximum value recorded for the 3-hour averaging period and 
the 2005 annual value were both 15% or less of the 3-hour and annual 
NAAQS. Based on this information, IDNR has proposed to discontinue this 
monitor. EPA has determined that discontinuance of this monitor is 
acceptable.
    The second monitor is located at Muscatine Power and Water (MPW) 
and, like the Greenwood Cemetery site, has never recorded an exceedance 
of the NAAQS and the maximum recorded values at the site have also 
declined. During 2005, the maximum value recorded at the site was 14% 
of the 24-hour NAAQS; the maximum recorded 3-hour value was less than 
14% of the 3-hour NAAQS, and the 2005 annual value was only 10% of the 
annual NAAQS. Based on this information, IDNR has proposed to 
discontinue this monitor. EPA has determined that discontinuance of 
this monitor is acceptable.
    The third monitor is located at Musser Park and recorded multiple 
exceedances prior to implementation of the emissions control strategy. 
Since the control strategy was implemented, only one 24-hour exceedance 
occurred which was on December 1, 1999, with a monitored value of 387.4 
[mu]g/m\3\ (0.148 ppm). (The 24-hour SO2 NAAQS is 0.14 ppm, 
not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year.) Maximum values 
recorded at the site have declined in recent years. During the last 
full year of data collection (2005) the maximum daily value recorded 
was 52% of the 24-hour NAAQS. No exceedances of the 3-hour or annual 
SO2 NAAQS have been recorded at this site. During 2005, the 
3-hour value recorded at the site was 33% of the 3-hour NAAQS. The 2005 
annual value was only 20% of the annual NAAQS. IDNR will continue to 
monitor at this site. The monitoring plan proposed by IDNR continues to 
meet the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part 58.
    Tracking the Progress of the Plan: An air quality modeling analysis 
was performed to support the development of the control strategy for 
the nonattainment area SIP. The inputs, procedures and results were 
reviewed during the development of the maintenance plan demonstration 
for the first 10-year maintenance plan, and a review for the second 10-
year plan concluded that no additional modeling was necessary. This 
decision was supported by the Muscatine SO2 monitoring 
network measurements which indicate no violations of the 24-hour 
SO2 NAAQS since the maintenance plan period started.
    Any new or modified major stationary source constructed in the 
state must comply with the state's Federally-approved New Source Review 
program. For major source construction or modification, implementation 
of the best available control technology provisions and completion of 
the ambient air quality impact analyses and additional impacts 
analyses, requirements of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
program will ensure that new or modified sources in the maintenance 
area, and in the vicinity of the maintenance area, are controlled to 
the extent necessary to maintain the SO2 NAAQS.

What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the state of Iowa for the purpose of establishing the 
second 10-year maintenance plan for the SO2 NAAQS in 
Muscatine, Iowa. This action will continue to ensure the measures in 
the plan maintain the standard in Muscatine and remain in place as 
Federal requirements.

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 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 docket, the revision meets the 
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 175A.

What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the second 10-year maintenance plan for the 
Muscatine, Iowa, area to maintain the SO2 NAAQS. We are 
processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions 
are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse 
comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of 
this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the 
rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the 
subject of an adverse comment.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power

[[Page 41903]]

and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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. 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 Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 22, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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. In Sec.  52.820(e) the table is amended by adding an entry in 
numerical order to read as follows:


Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                   EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or         State       EPA approval date        Explanation
           provision             nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(37) SO2 Maintenance Plan for    Muscatine.........      04/05/2007  08/01/2007 [insert  .......................
 the Second 10-year Period.                                           FR page number
                                                                      where the
                                                                      document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-14868 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P