[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46742-46747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18952]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0550; FRL 9915-02-Region 7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; 
2014 Iowa State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
grant full approval of Iowa's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS). Iowa completed the SIP revision in response to a SIP 
Call finalized by EPA on July 14, 2011, finding that the Iowa SIP was 
substantially inadequate to maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS in Muscatine County, Iowa. Iowa submitted its revised SIP to EPA 
on February 18, 2014. EPA believes that the SIP revision submitted by 
the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) identified in EPA's SIP Call and the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS and will keep the Muscatine area in attainment 
of the 35 microgram/cubic meter (ug/m\3\)PM 2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0550, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner 
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2014-0550. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
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 information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
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 email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
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 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 
Lenexa, Kansas. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. 
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: Amy Algoe-Eakin at (913) 551-7942, or 
email her at [email protected].

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

[[Page 46743]]

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Background
V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP
    A. Facility Descriptions
    B. Modeling and Emissions Inventory Data
    C. Control Strategy
    D. Contingency Measures
    E. Enforceability
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Iowa's SIP revision for 
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Iowa submitted this SIP 
revision in response to EPA's Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 
Implementation Plan; Call for Iowa State Implementation Plan Revision 
related to the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) in Muscatine County, Iowa. 76 FR 41424 (July 14, 2011) 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``SIP Call''). Iowa's SIP revision 
demonstrates continued attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP 
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also 
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In 
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the 
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Iowa's SIP revision in 
response to EPA's SIP Call to maintain the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. We are processing this as a proposed action 
because we are soliciting comments. Final rulemaking will occur after 
consideration of any comments.

IV. Background

    EPA determined based on 2008-2010 monitoring data from a monitor 
within the city limits of Muscatine, Iowa that the Iowa SIP was 
inadequate to maintain attainment with the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. 76 FR 41424.\1\ EPA based the SIP call on its 
review of the monitoring data as well as the information from the 
violating monitor. All portions of Muscatine County are, and continue 
to be designated as attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A complete history of EPA's rule making can be found at 76 
FR 9706, and 76 FR 41424. A summary is also included in the 
Technical Support Document (TSD) in the public docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA issued its SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA and 
required Iowa to submit a SIP revision within 18 months of the 
effective date of the SIP Call that included: (1) An emissions 
inventory of sources expected to contribute to the violating monitor; 
(2) a modeling demonstration showing the reductions needed to attain 
and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS; (3) enforceable control 
measures necessary to attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS; 
and (4) enforceable commitments to adopt and implement contingency 
measures if the area does not attain or violates the standard. The SIP 
Call required that Iowa's SIP revision provide for attainment and 
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Muscatine 
County as expeditiously as practicable.
    Iowa submitted its SIP revision to EPA on February 18, 2014.

V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP

A. Facility Descriptions

    In order to meet the requirements of the SIP Call, Iowa developed a 
control strategy for Muscatine County. Iowa determined that there were 
three facilities that were significant contributors to modeled 
exceedances in the vicinity of the Garfield School monitor: Grain 
Processing Corporation (GPC), Muscatine Power & Water (MPW) and Union 
Tank Car (UTC). The largest source of PM2.5 near the 
Garfield School monitor is GPC. The modeling demonstration submitted by 
Iowa shows that GPC has actual PM2.5 emissions of 537.6 
tons/year. MPW and UTC have 58.3 and 3.0 tons/year of PM2.5 
emissions, respectively.
    GPC is located approximately 500 meters east/southeast of the 
Garfield School monitor. GPC processes grain into industrial, beverage, 
and fuel-grade ethanol, grain based food products, industrial products, 
and animal feeds. GPC has nearly 200 PM2.5 emission points, 
including coal and gas-fired boilers, dryers, coolers and associated 
material handling and storage equipment.
    Union Tank Car (UTC) supplies and reconditions rail tank cars for 
use through rental agreements. The primary sources of PM2.5 
from UTC are from the removal of paint from rail tank cars, repair of 
rail tank cars, and application of paint through a spray system on rail 
tank cars. UTC is not a major source of PM2.5, but is 
located near the Garfield School monitor. Iowa determined that UTC 
contributed to predicted violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Therefore, Iowa included UTC in the control strategy.
    Muscatine Power & Water (MPW) is a municipal electric generating 
station located approximately 1.6 kilometers south and east of the 
Garfield School monitor. The primary sources of PM2.5 at MPW 
include emissions from three coal-fired boilers, Units 7, 8, and 9, and 
emissions from the associated handling and storage equipment.

B. Modeling and Emissions Inventory Data

    In the final SIP Call, EPA required the state to submit a modeled 
attainment demonstration which is consistent with appendix W to 40 CFR 
part 51. EPA required the modeling to show what reductions will be 
needed to attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. 
The state adequately addressed this requirement in its SIP submittal.
    The SIP revision includes a detailed explanation of the modeling 
conducted. Included in the state's plan is discussion of model 
selection and options including: The extent of the receptor grid, 
receptor grid spacing, terrain elevations, downwash, and meteorological 
data. The state also provides background as to the iterative analyses 
conducted as well as the detailed development of model inputs for 
emissions and meteorology.
    During the development of the plan and in previous technical 
modeling exercises regarding the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
designations, EPA provided technical expertise to the state regarding 
modeling activities. EPA Region 7 reviewed and provided comment on the 
state's modeling protocol during the development of the 
PM2.5 Muscatine SIP. (The modeling protocol is including in 
the state's formal submission as attachment A.)
    In evaluating the SIP revision for consistency with appendix W to 
40 CFR part 51, EPA Region 7 believes the state submission to be 
consistent with EPA's modeling requirements. Because local point 
sources are considered to be the significant contributors to the 
monitor 24-hour PM2.5 violations, the state's modeling was 
conducted using AERMOD version 12345. Again, the model selection, 
modeling inputs, such as background concentrations and significant 
impact levels, and results of modeled attainment tests were subject to 
consultation with EPA Region 7 prior

[[Page 46744]]

to the formal completion of the control strategy selection.
    In the SIP Call, EPA stated that the state must include in the 
revised SIP an emissions inventory consistent with 40 CFR 51.114. This 
regulatory provision provides for identification of emissions data and 
projections and each plan must contain a detailed inventory of 
emissions from point and area sources.
    Iowa has adequately addressed this requirement in the SIP revision. 
Iowa reviewed the average 2007 and 2008 facility-wide actual emissions 
from the facilities shown to contribute significantly to violations of 
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Building upon the technical 
analysis which occurred during the designations process for the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and in reviewing inventory for the 
development of modeling, the state determined three sources 
significantly contributed to the Garfield School monitored violations. 
Because of the form of the standard (24-hour average), local sources 
were determined to be critical in terms of contributions to ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations. The state, as noted in their SIP, did 
not identify any other potential emissions sources in the area of the 
violating monitor, such as area and mobile sources, as contributing 
significantly to the NAAQS violations. Background concentrations were 
added to modeled results to account for the regional transport of fine 
particulate matter and any unidentified local sources such as mobile 
and area sources not explicitly included in the model.

 C. Control Strategy

    Iowa determined that three sources: GPC, MPW, and UTC, contributed 
to modeled exceedances of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Iowa's SIP 
includes a control strategy addressing each of these sources. Iowa's 
control strategy for GPC is memorialized in Administrative Consent 
Order No. 2014-AQ-A1 (ACO), which is an administrative consent order 
between the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and GPC and is 
included as part of Iowa's SIP revision as SIP attachment B. The ACO 
includes a schedule for implementing the control strategy, as well as 
recordkeeping, reporting and testing requirements. The provisions of 
the ACO will be incorporated into permits, which will then be submitted 
to EPA for approval into the state SIP. The ACO includes numerous and 
substantial changes at the GPC facility. The control measures include 
new particulate controls or improvements to existing particulate 
controls on a number of sources; shutdown of existing equipment; 
replacement of old equipment; installation of more efficient equipment; 
regular sweeping and watering of road surfaces; increase of stack 
heights; and operating restrictions on certain processes. As described 
in detail in attachment A to the ACO, GPC has already implemented the 
control strategy at many of its emission points. This includes 
operation restrictions, PM2.5 emission limits, shutdown of 
emission units, and stack height increases. However, there are several 
large-scale projects that will require substantial planning and 
construction by GPC.
    Due to the scale and complexity of the control strategy 
implementation at GPC, GPC has developed a phased implementation 
schedule that is already underway and concludes in December 2016. Many 
of the changes at the GPC facility are contingent upon completion of a 
significant project related to a new dryer house (Dryer House 
#5 or DH 5) that is also required under a 2006 Consent Order 
entered into between GPC and the State of Iowa to address 
PM10 emissions. The DH 5 project is included in Iowa's SIP 
revision to address PM2.5 emissions.
    The SIP Call occurred at the same time GPC was designing the DH 5 
project to comply with the 2006 Consent Order. To demonstrate 
compliance with the PM2.5 SIP Call, GPC re-evaluated the DH 
5 project and made adjustments to the design to accommodate the more 
stringent plant-wide changes required by the PM2.5 SIP Call. 
As a result of the changes to the project to accommodate the 
PM2.5 SIP Call control strategy, the design complexity, and 
construction logistics for the DH 5 project, GPC will complete the 
project on March 31, 2015.
    The control strategy includes several large scale projects that are 
tied to the installation and completion of the DH 5 project. They are 
described in detail in the Technical Support Document for this action.
    The control strategy for GPC also includes several large scale 
projects that are complex in all aspects, including design and 
construction, and will require an extended schedule to complete. These 
projects include improvements to the dryer and scrubber performance at 
Gluten Plant Units 1 and 2; and decommissioning of dryers and 
conversion of dryers to natural gas. These projects are all described 
in detail in the TSD for this action.
    The complexity of the design, fabrication, and construction of the 
projects at GPC supports the phased implementation schedule. Further, 
approval of the phased implementation schedule does not have a negative 
effect on air quality. The 24-hour PM2.5 design values have 
been steadily declining over the last three design value periods. The 
most recent three year design value (2011-2013) at the Garfield School 
monitor is 28 ug/m\3\. Design values at both the Franklin School and 
Greenwood Cemetery monitors have also declined. The 2010-2012 design 
value for these monitors is 32 ug/m\3\. The on-going implementation of 
controls pursuant to the control strategy will ensure that future 
design values stay below the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and will 
eliminate the oscillation of the design values around the 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Full implementation of the control measures at GPC will reduce 
PM2.5 emissions from GPC by an estimated 367.9 tons/year.
    As part of the control strategy, Union Tank Car is installing new 
particulate controls on several emission points. It is also increasing 
stack heights at select locations and restricting operations of certain 
processes. Full implementation of control measures at UTC will reduce 
PM2.5 emissions from UTC by an estimated 0.3 tons per year. 
The UTC control measures are made enforceable through state-issued air 
construction permits, which were submitted by Iowa as part of its SIP 
revision and will become part of the SIP once EPA has granted full 
approval. All of the control measures at UTC have been implemented.
    As part of the control strategy, MPW will conduct regular watering 
of road surfaces; pave an unpaved road and water road surfaces; remove 
a lime silo and mixing tank, 3 diesel engines, and wet fly ash truck 
loading; and implement operational restrictions. MPW will also reduce 
the capacity of its limestone hopper loading and handling systems; 
install a roofed enclosure with three sides for the limestone hopper; 
and reduce the size of the coal pile, limestone pile and synthetic 
gypsum pile. MPW is also modifying its dust collection system for its 
coal reclaim and the coal crush feeders by reconfiguring the equipment 
and increasing the stack height. The MPW control measures are made 
enforceable through state-issued air construction permits, which were 
submitted by Iowa as part of its SIP revision and will become part of 
the SIP once EPA has granted full approval. All of the control measures 
at MPW have been implemented. The full implementation of the control 
strategy at MPW is expected to reduce PM2.5 emission from 
MPW by an estimated 0.7 tons per year.
    In our final rule (76 FR 41424), EPA stated that we would establish 
a specific date for attainment at the same time we

[[Page 46745]]

took final action on the state's implementation plan revision in 
response to this final SIP Call. 76 FR at 41426. At the time of the SIP 
Call, we expected the attainment date to be the first full calendar 
year following the implementation of controls. In this case, EPA 
expected the attainment date would be the first full calendar year 
following the required implementation of controls, i.e. 2014.
    However, based upon the information in Iowa's SIP revision, our 
review of the supplemental information provided by GPC by email dated 
April 29, 2014,\2\ and the current air quality monitoring data for the 
Muscatine area, EPA is proposing to establish this attainment date as 
December 31, 2017. This proposed attainment date is consistent with 
EPA's expectations established in the SIP Call, as it is the first full 
calendar year following implementation of controls. Due to the 
complexity of the control strategy, particularly the design, 
fabrication, and construction of the projects at GPC, and based on the 
current monitoring value, demonstrating continued attainment of the 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes that December 31, 2017 is the 
date by which long term compliance with the NAAQS can be achieved as 
expeditiously as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This information is included in the TSD and docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed control strategy will also further the downward trend 
of PM2.5 emissions for the Muscatine area and provide co-
benefits in reductions of other pollutants. Additional analysis can be 
found in the TSD for this action.

D. Contingency Measures

    In the SIP Call, EPA stated that it was reasonable to expect that 
the 98th percentile value of 24-hour concentrations for the calendar 
year after the necessary controls were implemented should be at or 
below the 24-hour PM2.5 standard (35 ug/m\3\). 76 FR at 
41426. EPA stated that contingency measures will be triggered if that 
value is above the 98th percentile value in the calendar year after the 
implementation of controls necessary for attainment or in any 
subsequent year. Id. EPA then stated that the SIP revision must contain 
an enforceable commitment to adopt and implement sufficient contingency 
measures, once triggered, in an expeditious and timely fashion that is 
comparable and analogous to the requirements for contingency measures 
in CAA section 175A(d). Id.
    EPA determined that the reference to CAA section 175A(d) was 
warranted because EPA made the SIP call to ensure that the area attains 
and then continues to maintain the PM2.5 standard. 76 FR at 
41428. At the time of the SIP Call, Iowa did not comment on the 
proposed contingency measure trigger. Id.
    In Iowa's SIP, Iowa included a phased approach to the contingency 
measure trigger. Iowa stated it will use a violation of the 2015-2017 
(or any subsequent) PM2.5 design value measured from the 
Garfield School monitor to determine whether contingency measures 
should be implemented (first tier trigger). The contingency measures 
would then be implemented no later than 24 months as stated in the SIP 
Call. If a contingency measure is triggered, Iowa would then use the 
98th percentile value for any subsequent calendar year following the 
implementation of contingency measures to determine the need for 
additional measures (second tier trigger).
    If the 98th percentile for any subsequent calendar year following 
the implementation of contingency measure is above 35 ug/m\3\ then 
additional contingency measures would be implemented as expeditiously 
as practicable, but no later than 24 months after the second tier of 
contingency measures is triggered. Like the contingency measures 
implemented as a result of the design value trigger (first tier 
trigger), the additional contingency measures implemented as a result 
of the 98th percentile trigger (second tier trigger) would continue 
indefinitely and become part of the permanent control strategy for the 
area.
    Iowa stated in its submission that it proposed this two tier 
approach because Iowa believed the SIP Call trigger (98th percentile in 
the calendar year following implementation of controls) did not 
adequately consider the potential role of regional (non-local) events. 
Iowa reviewed the statewide historical 98th percentile PM2.5 
monitoring data for the past 10 years. Iowa's review showed that if the 
SIP Call trigger was used, many communities in eastern Iowa that are 
not adjacent to direct sources of PM2.5 and that are not 
currently designated as non-attainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, would have been designated non-attainment for the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS due to regional PM2.5 episodes. Iowa 
also found that the SIP Call trigger failed to account for the 
documented year-to-year variability of meteorological conditions. The 
annual variability of meteorological conditions is accounted for in the 
form of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, which uses a three-year 
average of 98th percentile values.
    EPA commented on this approach during the public comment period on 
Iowa's proposed SIP revision. Iowa stated that the two tier trigger 
approach allows for the triggering of contingency measures on the same 
time schedule that would have been applicable with a trigger based only 
on the 98th percentile value for the calendar year after complete 
implementation of the control strategy.
    Section 175A(d) contingency measures are required as part of SIPs 
to assure that a state will promptly correct any violation of the 
standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an 
attainment area. The contingency measures shall include a requirement 
that the state will implement all measures with respect to the control 
for the air pollutant concerned which were contained in the SIP for the 
area before redesignation of the area to attainment. In the SIP Call, 
EPA stated that it did not intend to imply that section 175A(d) is 
literally applicable to the Muscatine area, but rather provided that 
IDNR follow 175A(d) as a guide for developing and implementing 
contingency measures. 76 FR at 41428. At the time of the SIP Call, EPA 
believed it was reasonable to expect the 98th percentile would be the 
appropriate trigger for implementing contingency measures. 76 FR at 
41426. After reviewing Iowa's SIP revision and the associated 
contingency measures, EPA believes that the SIP revision meets the 
requirements of the SIP Call.
    Iowa has used Section 175A(d) as guidance in developing the 
contingency measures, as required by the SIP Call. The contingency 
measure trigger proposed by Iowa is also reasonable. The first 
contingency measure trigger using the design value to determine whether 
there is a violation is consistent with the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS. The second contingency measure trigger using the 98th percentile 
value is consistent with EPA's SIP Call. Iowa will immediately 
implement the contingency measures as described below, upon reaching 
the first trigger.
    EPA has carefully reviewed the control strategy and the contingency 
measures proposed and agrees that the design value trigger for the 
contingency measures is reasonable, given the strength of the control 
strategy and the contingency measures proposed and the current design 
value data of 28 ug/m\3\.
    EPA is proposing to adopt Iowa's two tier contingency measure 
approach. The two tier approach is protective of air quality and 
provides for a comprehensive approach to contingency measures. 
Therefore, EPA proposes to

[[Page 46746]]

approve Iowa's two tier trigger for the contingency measures.
    As with all aspects of this proposal, EPA is taking comment on the 
approval of the two tier contingency measure trigger.
    In the event that the 2015-2107 24-hour PM2.5 design 
value exceeds the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at the Garfield School 
monitor, Iowa will require the submission of an emissions control 
program from the appropriate sources in the area. Iowa will determine 
which sources are required to submit an emissions control program based 
on the circumstances that triggered the exceedance. Iowa developed some 
potential contingency measures that may provide additional reductions 
in the event of an exceedance. These include the following: Evaluate 
and install additional control equipment, as needed; evaluate and 
implement changes in stack parameters and stack configurations to 
improve dispersion of emissions; evaluate and implement additional 
operation and production restrictions; evaluate and implement process 
changes to reduce PM2.5 and PM2.5 formation; 
review operations and maintenance procedures to determine whether 
improvements can be made; re-evaluate traffic flow patterns at 
facilities and vehicle miles traveled to determine whether idling time 
and congestion can be reduced; re-evaluate material produce unloading, 
handling, and loading procedures and patters to determine whether 
improvements can be made; re-evaluate facility best management 
practices associated with housekeeping including cleaning internal and 
external areas to minimize dust when the facility is receiving, 
transferring or loading out materials and product; consider planting 
vegetation in specific areas to control dust flow patterns and fugitive 
emissions; and identify and implement other improvements that may be 
necessary based on potential sources of particulate emissions.
    The contingency measures adoption and implementation schedule is as 
follows:

        Contingency Measures Adoption and Implementation Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Activity                Completion date  (T=trigger date)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Evaluate circumstances of      T + 1 month.
 trigger; ID sources.
(2) Identify additional control    T + 2 months.
 measures.
(3) Facility(s) submit emission    T + 4 months.
 control program.
(4) Issue order or permits.......  T + 6 months.
(5) Facility(s) implement          Within T + 24 months.
 additional control measures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions control plan for any facility required to submit a 
plan would include the necessary supporting technical information, 
emissions calculations, construction permit applications, and air 
quality evaluation to make the additional control measure enforceable 
through the issuance of an order or construction permits. This approach 
requires each affected facility to create and implement an emissions 
control plan with targeted control measures appropriate to the 
circumstances of the situation that triggered the contingency measures.

E. Enforceability

    As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the 
CAA and 57 FR 13556, all measures and other elements in the SIP must be 
enforceable by the state and EPA. The enforceable documents included in 
Iowa's SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve are the ACO\3\ 
(Administrative Consent Order No. 2014-AQ-A1) and the construction 
permits for MPW and UTC. The ACO contains all the control measures with 
enforceable dates for implementation. The construction permits for MPW 
and UTC contain all the necessary operational requirements for 
implementation. Further, the control strategy at MPW and UTC is in the 
process of being fully implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As stated in Iowa's SIP submission letter of February 18, 
2014, Iowa did not submit Section III, Paragraph 5, the last 
sentence, or Section VI to EPA for approval. Therefore, those 
provisions of the 2014 ACO are not part of Iowa's SIP and are not 
considered by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon EPA approval of the SIP revision, the ACO and the state 
permits will become state and Federally enforceable, and enforceable by 
citizens under section 304 of the CAA. The ACO specifically allows for 
the enforcement of the ACO if the terms and provisions are not met. EPA 
is not bound by the state's enforcement or penalty actions and would 
enforce violations of this document under section 113 of the CAA or 
other Federal authorities.
    EPA proposed to approve Iowa's SIP as meeting sections 172(c)(6) 
and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Iowa's SIP revision to 
maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

VII. 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 under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 
January 21, 2011).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

[[Page 46747]]

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this action. This action merely approves 
a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the 
relationship or the distribution of power 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 state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state 
submission, to use VCS in place of a state 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 action does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    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 CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by October 10, 2014. 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. 
Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to 
file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed 
rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of 
today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for 
judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw 
this direct final rule and address the comment in the final rulemaking. 
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, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 1, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2014-18952 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P