[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9706-9709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3862]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-1083; FRL-9268-4]


Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call 
for Iowa State Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
authority in the Clean Air Act (CAA), section 110 (k)(5), to call for 
plan revisions, EPA is proposing to find that the Iowa State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) is substantially inadequate to maintain the 
2006 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in Muscatine County, Iowa. The specific SIP 
deficiencies needing revision are described below. EPA is also 
proposing to finalize a timeline for Iowa to revise its SIP to correct 
these deficiencies by a date which is no later than 18 months after the 
effective date of the final rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2010-1083, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80e3e1f3e2f5f2eeaef4f2e1e3e5f9c0e5f0e1aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f6c6e7c6d7a7d61217b7d6e6c6a764f6a7f6e21686079">[email protected]</span></a>.
    3. Mail: Tracey Casburn, 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: Tracey 
Casburn, 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-
2010-1083. 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 information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The

[[Page 9707]]

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, 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 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. 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: Tracey Casburn at (913) 551-7016 or by 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea898b99889f9884c49e988b898f93aa8f9a8bc48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="432022302136312d6d37312220263a032633226d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>.

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:

I. What is the basis for the proposed finding?
II. How can Iowa correct the inadequacy and when must the correction 
be submitted?
III. What action is EPA proposing?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
V. Statutory Authority

I. What is the basis for the proposed finding?

    EPA promulgated the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF> on 
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144) based on significant evidence and 
numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are 
associated with exposures to fine particulate matter. The 2006 standard 
for 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> was set at a level of 35 micrograms 
([mu]g) of particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers ([mu]m) in 
diameter, per cubic meter of air. The standard is met when the 3-year 
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations is equal to or 
less than 35[mu]g/m\3\. The computation of this 3-year average of the 
98th percentiles of 24-hour concentrations is commonly referred to as 
the design value (dv)and is based on the most recent 3 years of quality 
assured data.
    Section 110 (a) (2) (B) requires each state to establish and 
operate appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary 
to monitor, compile and analyze data on ambient air quality. Pursuant 
to this authority, the state maintains a network of air quality 
monitors for PM<INF>2.5</INF> in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 which 
meets applicable requirements. Monitors called State or Local Air 
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) make up the ambient air quality monitoring 
sites whose data are primarily used for determining compliance with the 
NAAQS.
    In accordance with section 107(d) (1)(B) of the CAA, no later than 
2 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the Administrator 
must designate all areas, or portions thereof, within each state as 
nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable. This process is commonly 
referred to as the ``designations process''.
    With respect to all pollutants, including PM<INF>2.5</INF>, if 
monitoring data demonstrates that an area does not comply with the 
NAAQS, or contributes to a violation in a nearby area, that area is 
designated as nonattainment. If monitoring data demonstrates that an 
area complies with the NAAQS, and the area does not contribute to air 
quality problems in nearby areas that do not comply with the NAAQS, the 
area is designated attainment. If there is not enough information to 
determine if an area is compliant with the NAAQS it is designated as 
unclassifiable. On November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated its final 
designations for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards (74 FR 
58688). These designations were determined based upon air quality 
monitoring data for calendar years 2006-2008 (which were the most 
recent three years of data prior to the initial designations). The 
entire State of Iowa was designated as unclassifiable/attainment (74 FR 
58729) at that time based on that set of data.
    On May 20, 2010, the state submitted certified SLAMS monitoring 
data, for calendar year 2009, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58. When 
determining the design value (dv) for the current 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard based upon air quality monitoring data for 
calendar years 2007-2009, EPA concluded that a monitor in the Muscatine 
area recorded data violating the standard. The monitor (site 
ID<greek-i> 191390015) is located in the City of Muscatine, Muscatine 
County, IA, and is the only PM<INF>2.5</INF> State or Local Air 
Monitoring (SLAM) station in the county. The SLAM stations make up the 
ambient air quality monitoring sites that are primarily needed for 
NAAQS comparisons. Site ID<greek-i> 191390015 is often referred to as 
the ``Garfield School'' monitor and will be referred to as such in this 
proposed rulemaking. The 2007-2009 dv for the Garfield School monitor 
is 38 [mu]g/m\3\. Historically, the Garfield School monitoring location 
has recorded fluctuating PM<INF>2.5</INF> values very near or above the 
NAAQs. Historical values are shown in Table 1. Preliminary data for 
2010 indicate that the Muscatine area continues to violate the 2006 24-
hour standard based on 2008-2010 monitoring data.
    The area was not designated nonattainment at the time of EPA's 
initial designations rulemaking for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard in 2009, because, at that time, available certified monitoring 
data demonstrated that the dv was compliant with the standard.

    Table 1--Historical Design Values at the Garfield School Monitor
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Design
                       Monitoring years                          value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001-2003....................................................         35
2002-2004....................................................         35
2003-2005....................................................         38
2004-2006....................................................         34
2005-2007....................................................         36
2006-2008....................................................         35
2007-2009....................................................         38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA provides, in relevant part, that 
``[w]henever the Administrator finds that the applicable implementation 
plan for an area is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the 
relevant national ambient air quality standard,* * *the Administrator 
shall require that state to revise the plan as necessary to correct 
such inadequacies.''
    Because monitor data in the Muscatine area show violations of the 
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards, based upon 2007-2009 data, and 
have shown violations of the standard in the past (based upon 2005-2007 
data), EPA

[[Page 9708]]

believes the SIP is substantially inadequate to maintain the 2006 24-
hour NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF> in this area. Therefore, EPA proposes 
to require revisions to the SIP as described further below.

II. How can Iowa correct the inadequacy and when must the correction be 
submitted?

    EPA believes that the state must submit several specific plan 
elements to EPA in order to correct the inadequacy of the SIP 
indentified above. These specific elements are: (1) A revised emissions 
inventory for all sources (including area sources, mobile sources and 
other significant sources) that could be expected to contribute to the 
violating monitor because of their size, proximity, or other relevant 
factors consistent with 40 CFR 51.114(a); (2) a modeling demonstration 
consistent with Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 showing what reductions 
will be needed to attain and maintain the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the 
area; (3) adopted measures to achieve reductions determined necessary 
to attain and maintain the NAAQS, with enforceable schedules for 
implementing the measures as expeditiously as practicable; and (4) 
contingency measures as described below.
    The Muscatine area is currently designated as attainment of the 
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards, however, EPA is proposing to 
find the SIP substantially inadequate to maintain the 2006 24-hour 
NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5,</INF> due to the monitor in the Muscatine area 
(Garfield School) recording data violating the standard (considering 
2007-2009 monitoring data). In this instance, the CAA requirements 
relating to nonattainment areas are not expressly applicable. 
Therefore, consistent with the general SIP requirements in section 110 
of the CAA, EPA is proposing to require a SIP revision which includes 
adopted measures to achieve reductions determined necessary to attain 
and maintain the NAAQS, as well as contingency measures, as described 
below.
    EPA is proposing that all adopted measures to achieve reductions, 
determined through the modeling demonstration to be necessary to attain 
and maintain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, should be 
implemented no later than two years after the issuance of the final SIP 
Call. EPA believes that this schedule is reasonable, because the Iowa 
Department of Natural Resources has already performed a substantial 
portion of its analysis of the nature of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> problem 
in the area and the types of controls which might be necessary to 
address the problem.
    EPA believes that it is reasonable to expect that the design value 
during the calendar year after the necessary controls are implemented 
should be at or below the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. EPA 
proposes that the contingency measures would be triggered if the design 
value is above the standard in the calendar year after the 
implementation of controls necessary for attainment, or in any 
subsequent year. EPA is proposing that the SIP revision 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 requirements for contingency measures in 
CAA Section 175A(d). To do so, the SIP revision should clearly identify 
measures which could be timely adopted and implemented, a schedule and 
procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit 
for action by the state. The schedule for adoption and implementation 
should be as expeditious as practicable, but no longer than 24 months 
after being triggered. EPA also seeks comments on whether any 
additional contingency measure triggers would be appropriate, or 
whether contingency measures should be adopted in advance and available 
for prompt implementation once triggered.
    Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA provides that after EPA makes a 
finding that a plan is substantially inadequate, it may establish a 
reasonable deadline for the state to submit SIP revisions correcting 
the deficiencies, but the date cannot be later than 18 months after the 
state is notified of the finding. Consistent with this provision, EPA 
proposes to require the submittal within 18 months following any final 
finding of substantial inadequacy. EPA proposes that the 18-month 
period would begin on the effective date of the final rulemaking. EPA 
seeks comments on the proposed deadline and on whether an alternate 
deadline should be established.
    EPA is proposing to require the state to establish a specific date 
in its SIP revision by which the Muscatine area will attain the 
standard. The date must be as expeditious as practicable based upon 
implementation of Federal, state and local measures. As discussed 
previously, we expect that the date will be no later than the beginning 
of the calendar year after the implementation of controls necessary for 
attainment (two years after the finding of substantial inadequacy and 
SIP Call). EPA will establish a specific date for attainment at the 
same time it takes final action on the state's SIP revision.
    Notwithstanding the date for attainment, the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard can only be achieved when the average of 
three consecutive years of data shows those PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations are at or below the levels of the 2006 24-hour standard.

III. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA proposes the following actions relating to the Iowa SIP for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> for Muscatine County. EPA proposes to:
    1. Find that the SIP is substantially inadequate to maintain the 
NAAQS for 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the area;
    2. Require that Iowa revise and submit to EPA a SIP to meet all of 
the applicable requirements of section 110 of the Act with respect to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the area, including an emissions inventory, modeled 
attainment demonstration, adopted control measures and contingency 
measures as described in this proposal;
    3. Require the state to submit revisions to the SIP within 18 
months of the effective date of the final SIP Call determination;
    4. Require that all adopted measures to achieve reductions 
determined necessary to attain and maintain the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard be implemented no later than two years after 
the issuance of the SIP Call determination.
    5. Require that the SIP provide for attainment and maintenance of 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Muscatine County, IA 
area as expeditiously as practicable, which EPA expects to be no later 
than the beginning of the calendar year after the implementation of 
controls necessary for attainment (two years after the finding of 
substantial inadequacy and SIP Call).
    We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions. Final 
rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, a finding of substantial inadequacy and 
subsequent obligation for a state to revise its SIP arise out of 
section 110(a) and 110(k)(5). The finding and state obligation do not 
directly impose any new regulatory requirements. In addition, the state 
obligation is not legally enforceable by a court of law. EPA would 
review its intended action on any SIP submittal in response to the 
finding in light of applicable statutory and Executive Order 
requirements, in subsequent rulemaking acting on such SIP submittal. 
For those reasons, this proposed action:

[[Page 9709]]

    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the finding of SIP inadequacy would not apply in Indian country 
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

V. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 110 
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410 and 7601).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Iowa, Particulate 
matter, State Implementation Plan.

    Dated: February 10, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-3862 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>