MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Technical Support Document for Clean Air Act 110(a)(l) and (2) Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, State of Iowa, for 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), and a Iowa Laws and Regulations 

FROM: Heather 

A WMD/ APDB/CPPS 

TO: 

THRU: 

SUMMARY 

IA-150 

Joshua Tapp, Chief 

AWMD/APDB 

Michael Jay, Chief 

AWMD/APDB/AtPS 

This action addresses two separate SIP revision submissions from the Iowa Department ofNatural 

Resources (IDNR). 

1. On November4, 2011, EPA received IDNR's Clean Air Act (CAA) 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

SIP submission for the 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS. 

2. On May 11,2015, EPA received IDNR's SIP submission that addresses relevant laws and regulations 

as applied to conflict of interest to meet the requirements of section 128 and section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

Section 110(a)(1) ofthe CAA requires, in part, that states make a SIP submission to EPA to implement, 

maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA after reasonable notice and public 

hearings. When EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, states are required to make a SIP 

submission, commonly referred to as an "infrastructure" SIP submission to assure that the states' SIPs 

meet basic structural requirements. Section 11 O(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that such 

infrastructure SIP submissions must address. States are required to make infrastructure SIP submissions 

meeting the requirements of sections 11 O(a)(l) and (2) within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS. 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
sections llO(a)(l) and (2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 1 

EPA will address these elements below under the following headings: (A) Emission limits and other 

control measures; (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system; (C) Program for enforcement of 

control measures (prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), New Source Review (NSR) for 

nonattainment areas, and construction and modification of all stationary sources); (D) Interstate and 

international transport; (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight; (F) Stationary 

source monitoring system; (G) Emergency authority; (H) Future SIP revisions; (I) Nonattainment areas; 

(J) Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection; (K) Air 

quality and modeling/data; (L) Permitting fees; and (M) Consultation/participation by affected local 

entities. 

EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions: 

EPA is acting upon the October 31, 2011 (received by EPA November 4, 2011 }, infrastructure SIP 

submission from Iowa that addresses the requirements ofCAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission ofthis type arises out ofCAA 

section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions "within 3 years (or 

such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)," and these SIP submissions are to provide for the 

"implementation, maintenance, and enforcement" of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on 

states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not 

conditioned upon EPA taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that [e]ach such plan" submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the 

requirements ofCAA sections 110(a)(l) and 110(a)(2) as "infrastructure SIP" submissions. Although 

the term "infrastructure SIP" does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this 

particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements 

under the CAA, such as "nonattainment SIP" or "attainment plan SIP" submissions to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, "regional haze SIP" submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169 A, and 

nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of 

CAA, title I, part D. 

1 Stephen D. Page, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(l) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead 

(Ph) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)," Memorandum to EPA Regional Air Division Directors, Regions IX, October 14, 2011 (2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance). 

2 
list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains 

ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission. 

The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 11 0( a)( 1) 

and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or 

revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that "each" SIP 

submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in 

part D oftitle I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements. 3 Section 

110(a)(2)(1) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP 

submissions to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires 

EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator 

promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two 

years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.4 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 11 O(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must 

determine which provisions of section 11 O(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure 

SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP 

submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit "a plan" to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow 

states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same 

NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP 

2 For example: section 11 O(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 

under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 11 O(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have 

legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

3 See, e.g., "Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions 

to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule," 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

4 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 11 O(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific 

dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., 

that section 182(a)( 1) provides specific dates for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these 

specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS. 

3 
submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 

110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised 

NAAQS. The state's attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be 

different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 11 0( a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, 

therefore the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be 

very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS. 7 

EPA notes that interpretation of section 11 O(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of 

SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also 

has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 11 O(a)(2) that logically apply to these other 

types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172( c )(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the "applicable requirements" of section 11 0( a)(2). Thus, for example, 

attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(A) regarding 

enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 11 O(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in 

part C oftitle I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated 

nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 11 O(a)(2) but not others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in some ofthe statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 

110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 

and section 11 0( a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the 

NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the 

requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under 

which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 11 O(a)(2), but only 

to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS. 

5 See, e.g., "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) 

State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) Permitting," 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PMz.s NSR rule), and "Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for 

the 2006 PMz.s NAAQS," (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PMz.s 

NAAQS). 

6 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made 

a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections llO(a){l) and (2). EPA proposed 

action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23,2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14,2012 

(77 FR 14976). On Aprill6, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA took separate proposed and fmal 

actions on all other section 11 O(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 2007 submittal. 

7 For example, implementation of the 1997 PMz.s NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 

ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

4 
guidance where applicable (although not specifically issued for the 2008 Pb NAAQS) and have found 

no conflicts between the issued guidance and review oflowa's SIP submission. 

Within the 2013 guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to 

meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. 

EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 11 O(a)(2) that are relevant 

in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions. 10 The guidance also discusses the substantively 

important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 11 O(a)(2). Significantly, EPA 

interprets sections 110(a)(l) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address 

certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 11 O(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which 

pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with 

similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP 

appropriately addresses the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance 

explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately 

address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's 

permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a 

multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the 

substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure 

SIP submissions because section 11 O(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions 

ofsection 128. 

As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program 

requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements 

include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, 

including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include 

8 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP 

submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects 

to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate. 

9 "Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections llO(a)(l) and 

110(a)(2)," Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. 

10 EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to 

address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. 

Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i){l) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether 

EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations. 

5 
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether 

the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each 

and every provision of a state's existing minor source program {i.e., already in the existing SIP) for 

compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP 

submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a 

state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) existing provisions related to excess emissions from 

sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's 

policies addressing such excess emissions ("SSM"); (ii) existing provisions related to "director's 

variance" or "director's discretion" that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further 

approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current 

requirements ofEPA's "Final NSR Improvement Rule," 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as 

amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) ("NSR Reform"). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an 

infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially 

deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions. 11 It 

is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission should not be 

construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to 

the three specific issues just described. 

EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general 

requirements of section 11 O(a)(1) and the list of elements in 11 O(a)(2) as requiring review of each and 

every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations 

merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a 

functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades 

as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some 

outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of "implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement" of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP 

submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those 

elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the 

promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors. 

11 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a 

legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure 

SIP. 

6 
infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a 

complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. 

The requirements of Element D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a 

complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. Iowa has shown 

that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application ofPSD 

permitting requirements to GHG emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant 

for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The 

Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on 

emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application ofBest Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its 

understanding ofthe Court's decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision, the EPA 

is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements 

that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a 

state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only 

pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) 

for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a 

modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b )( 48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD rules in light 

of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing 

SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of 

subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state PSD program approvals are 

expected to be informed by additional legal process before the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD 

programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to 

assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. 

At present, EPA has determined the Iowa SIP is sufficient to satisfy Elements 110(a)(2) C, D(i)(II), and 

J with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP 

continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the 

approved Iowa PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in 

light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to 

satisfy Elements 11 0( a)(2) C, (D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this 

time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previouslyapproved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary 

at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not 

affect EPA's proposed approval oflowa's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of Elements 

110(a)(2) C, D(i)(II), and J. 

7 
past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions. 13 Significantly, EPA's determination that an 

action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all 

potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 

110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's 

discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that 

section 11 0( a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent action. 14 

EPA's evaluation of how the state of Iowa addressed the relevant elements of sections llO(a)(l) 

and (2) 

Note: Throughout this section, there are numerous references to Iowa Code 455B, 

"Jurisdiction of Department of Natural Resources." Iowa Code includes laws enacted by the Iowa 

General Assembly and provides legislative authority for IDNR. Additional information about the 

Iowa Code can be found at http://www.legis.iowa.gov/iowalaw/statutorvlaw.aspx 

The Iowa Administrative Code (lAC) is a composite of all adopted administrative rules. A bi-weekly 

bulletin is published of all proposed and adopted changes and is available through the IDNR web site 

www.iowadnr.gov, or by listserv. The Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) has been 

assigned Chapter 567 of the lAC and air quality rules are in Chapters 10, 20-29, 31, and 33-34. A 

table of contents for these chapters were included in the 2008 Ph infrastructure submission. 

On November 4, 2011, EPA Region 7 received Iowa's infrastructure SIP submission from IDNR for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. This SIP submission became complete as a matter of law on May 4, 2012. EPA 

reviewed Iowa's infrastructure SIP submission and the relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in that submission or referenced in Iowa's current EPA-approved SIP. Below is 

EPA's evaluation ofhow the state addressed the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

12 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess 

emissions during SSM events. See "Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions," 74 FR 21639 (Aprill8, 2011). 

13 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See "Limitation 

of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule," 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 

section 11 O(k)( 6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 

FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, 

and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) 

(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

14 See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 

discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 11 O(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (fmal disapproval 

of such provisions); e.g., May 22, 2015, the Administrator signed the final action on the Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction 

SIP Call Petition that included the State oflowa. 

8 
The EPC has the duty and authority to develop plans for abatement, control and prevention of air 

pollution, which includes emission limits and schedules for compliance. As outlined in Iowa Code 

4558.133 "Duties" 1-4, the EPC also adopts, amends, or repeals emission limits relating to the 

maximum quantities of air contaminants that may be emitted from an air contaminant source. 

Administrative rules establish procedures for compliance with emission limits (567 lAC Chapter 21 -

"Compliance.") Specific emission limits or other control measures necessary to resolve Pb 

nonattainment are not part of, and thus are not included in, the Infrastructure SIP. 16 

Iowa adopted the 2008 Pb standards as specified in 40 CFR 50.16(a), into 567 lAC Chapter 28-

"Ambient Air Quality Standards," with the effective date of November 24, 201 0; therefore, Pb is a 

contaminant which may be regulated under Iowa law. Based upon review of the state's infrastructure 

SIP submission for the 2008 Pb standard, and applicable statutory and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Iowa's SIP, EPA believes that Iowa has 

statutory and regulatory authority to establish additional emission limitations and other measures, as 

necessary to address attainment and maintenance of the Pb standards. 

Based on review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant 

statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Iowa's 

SIP, EPA believes the Iowa SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(A) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the November 4, 2011, SIP submission. 

(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include 

provisions to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collection and 

analysis of ambient air quality data, and making these data available to EPA upon request. 

15 The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirements of section 

172, not the timing requirement of section 11 O(a)(l ). Thus, section 11 O(a)(2)(A) does not require that states submit 

regulations or emissions limits specifically for attaining the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Those SIP provisions are due as part of each 

state's attainment plan, and will be addressed separately from the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(A). In the context of an 

infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating 

whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS. 

16 As noted in the preamble for the lead NAAQS (74 FR 66964, November 12, 2008) in footnote 113 on page 67034: "Two 

elements identified in section 11 O(a)(2) are not listed below because, as EPA interprets the CAA, SIPs incorporating any 

necessary local nonattainment area controls would not be due within 3 years, but rather are due at the time the nonattainment 

area planning requirements are due. These elements are: (1) Emission limits and other control measures, section 

110(a)(2)(A), and (2) Provisions for meeting part D, section (l)(a)(2)(I), which requires areas designated as nonattainment to 

meet the applicable nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA." 

9 
monitoring network, as required by 40 CFR 58.10. Prior to submission to EPA, Iowa makes the plan 

available for public review on IDNR's web site at 

(http://www.iowadnr.gov/InsideDNR/RegulatoryAir/MonitoringAmbientAir.aspx. IDNR also conducts 

five-year monitoring network assessments as required by 40 CFR 58.10(d). Furthermore, Iowa submits 

air quality data to EPA's Air Quality System, pursuant to the provisions of the state's grant work plans 

developed in conjunction of EPA. This data determines if the network site monitors are in compliance 

with the NAAQS. 

IDNR operates one Pb monitor in Council Bluffs, Iowa, in accordance with the current Pb monitoring 

requirements. Ambient concentrations of Pb are measured in accordance with the applicable federal 

regulations in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix D, or equivalent methods as approved by EPA pursuant to 40 

CFR Part 53. 

Based on review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant 

statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Iowa's 

SIP, EPA believes the Iowa SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 11 0( a)(2)(B) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the November 4, 2011, SIP submission. 

(C) Program for enforcement of control measures (PSD, New Source Review for nonattainment 

areas, and construction and modification of all stationary sources): Section 11 O(a)(2)(C) requires states 

to include the following three elements in the SIP: (1) a program providing for enforcement of measures 

described in section 110(a)(2)(A); (2) a program for the regulation of the modification and construction 

of stationary sources as necessary to protect the applicable NAAQS (i.e., state-wide permitting of minor 

sources); and (3) a permit program to meet the major source permitting requirements of the CAA (for 

areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the NAAQS in question)P 

(1) Enforcement of SIP Measures. With respect to enforcement of requirements of the SIP, Iowa 

Code 455B.133 "Duties" and 567 lAC Chapter 10 - "Administrative Penalties," provides 

authority for IDNR to establish the schedule or range of civil penalties, and the director has 

the duty and authority to issue orders consistent with the administrative rules to control air 

pollution and ensure compliance with permit conditions. The EPC approves administrative 

rules that establish, by rule, a schedule or range of civil penalties which may be 

administratively assessed (Iowa Code 4558.109 "Schedule of Fines- Violations," 567 lAC 

Chapter 10). Iowa Code 455B.l40 "Judicial Review," allows the state oflowa to seek 

17 As discussed previously, this infrastructure SIP rulemaking will not address the Iowa program for nonattainment area 

related provisions, since EPA considers evaluation of these provisions to be outside the scope of infrastructure SIP actions. 

10 
(2) Minor New Source Review. Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that the SIP include measures to 

regulate construction and modification of stationary sources to protect the NAAQS. Iowa has 

a SIP-approved program for pre-construction permits. 

The IDNR pre-construction permit program reviews design and performance objectives for sources of 

air contaminants to determine likely compliance with state and federal requirements, and to assure that 

emission standards shall not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. Unique to Iowa is that all 

new or modified equipment, or control equipment is required to obtain a construction permit if 

constructed after September 23, 1970, unless exempt. Exemptions are listed in 567 lAC Chapter 22 -

"Controlling Pollution," ofthe federally-approved SIP. An example of an exemption is a bathroom 

vent. Furthermore, IDNR is prohibited from issuing a permit if the project results in a violation of 

emissions or other provisions of the federally-approved SIP. In addition to section 165 of the CAA, 

construction activities before obtaining a permit is a violation oflowa Code 4558.134 "Director-DutiesLimitations," 567 lAC 21.1(1) (b) "Compliance," and 567 lAC 33.3(2) (b) "Special Regulations and 

Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources- Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality." 

Federally-approved permitting rules are located in 567 lAC Chapter 22- "Controlling Pollution." 

Chapter 31 "Nonattainment," contains applicability thresholds for nonattainment areas, while 567 lAC 

Chapter 33 contains applicability thresholds for attainment areas. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Iowa's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS with 

respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates 

the modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to ensure the NAAQS are 

achieved. In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the state's existing minor NSR 

program to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has 

maintained that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP submissions correct any defects in 

existing EPA-approved provisions of minor NSR programs in order for EPA to approve the 

infrastructure SIP for element (C) (e.g., 76 FR 41076-41079). 

(3) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. Iowa has a PSD permitting 

program approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of part C, relating to the prevention 

of significant deterioration of air quality. In order to demonstrate that Iowa has met this subelement, this PSD program must cover requirements not just for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, but 

for all other regulated NSR pollutants as well. As stated in the October 14, 2011, Pb 

Infrastructure SIP guidance, EPA has not proposed to amend the PSD regulations with regard 

to the Pb NAAQS because it believes that, generally, there is sufficient guidance and 

regulations already in place to fully implement the revised Pb NAAQS. 

1l 
in 567 lAC 31.3, "Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for Areas Designated 

Nonattainment on or After May 18, 1998," and 567 lAC 31.20 "Special Requirements for 

Nonattainment Areas Designated Before May 18, 1998" (Originally Adopted in 567-22.5). EPA notes, 

however, that it does not evaluate a state's SIP with respect to nonattainment area plan requirements, 

including nonattainment NSR permitting program requirements, in the context of infrastructure SIP 

actions. (See EPA's "Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under sections 110(a)(l) and 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Ph NAAQS," October 14, 2011, section 110(a)(2)(1).) 

IDNR issues all PSD permits in the state of Iowa on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. In addition to 

construction permit information, rules and statutes previously discussed in 110(a)(2)(C)(2), preapplication meetings between facilities and IDNR are encouraged, especially for major source facilities. 

Based on review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant 

statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Iowa's 

SIP, EPA believes the Iowa SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the November 4, 2011, SIP submission. 

(D) Interstate and international transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four requirements 

referred to as prongs 1 through 4. Prongs 1 and 2 are provided at section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); Prongs 3 

and 4 are provided at section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l) requires SIPs to include adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of any NAAQS in another 

state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include adequate provisions prohibiting any source or 

other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required of any other state to 

prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility. 

With respect to prongs 1 and 2, the physical properties ofPb prevent Pb emissions from transporting 

significantly in the ambient air. No complex chemistry is needed to form Ph or Pb compounds in the 

ambient air; therefore, concentrations ofPb are typically highest near Pb sources. More specifically, 

there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations as the distance from the source increases. According to 

EPA's report entitled Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends Through 20/0, Pb concentrations that are not 

near a source ofPb are approximately 8 times less than the typical concentrations near the source 

(http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2011/report/fullreport.pdf). 

EPA believes that the requirements of prongs 1 and 2 can be satisfied through a state's assessment as to 

whether a Pb source located within its state in close proximity to a state border has emissions that 

contribute significantly to the nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

neighboring state. Modeling conducted by Iowa indicated that the Pb emissions from the largest Pb 

sources in Iowa do not interfere with the applicable requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(l); however, 

12 
With respect to the PSD requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)- prong 3, EPA notes Iowa's 

satisfaction of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for attainment/unclassifiable areas of 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS that have been detailed in the section addressing section 11 O(a)(2)(C). 

With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)-

prong 4, significant impacts from Pb emissions from stationary sources are expected to be limited to 

short distances from the source and most, if not all, Pb stationary sources are located at distances from 

Class I areas such that visibility impacts would be negligible. Although Pb can be a component of coarse 

and fine particles, Pb generally comprises a small fraction of coarse and fine particles. Furthermore, 

when evaluating the extent that Pb could impact visibility, Ph-related visibility impacts were found to be 

insignificant (e.g., less than 0.1 0%). 18 

Section 110 ( a)(2)(D)(ii) also requires that the SIP ensure compliance with the applicable requirements 

of sections 126 and 115 of the CAA, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, 

respectively. 

Section 126( a) of the CAA requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential 

impacts from sources within the state. Although Iowa sources have not been identified by EPA as 

having any interstate or international impacts under section 126 or section 115 in any pending actions 

relating to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, modeling conducted for ambient monitor placement indicates that the 

Pb emissions from the largest Pb sources in Iowa do not interfere with the attainment and maintenance 

of the Ph NAAQS in other states or other countries. Detailed information about the impact ofPb emissions from Iowa sources is included in the annual air monitoring network plans. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) is addressed by IDNR's implementation ofthe federally-approved pre-construction 

permit review, and PSD permit program notification requirements for Federal Class I areas. Specifically, 

EPA, as well as officials and agencies having cognizance where the proposed construction is to occur 

are notified of the pending permit. This includes state or local air pollution control agencies, chief 

executives of the city and county where the source would be located, any comprehensive regional land 

use planning agency; and any state, Federal Land Manager, or Indian governing body whose lands may 

be affected by emissions from the source or modification. Finally, EPA believes that Iowa could use the 

same statutory authorities previously discussed, primarily lAC 567 Chapter 22, to respond to any future 

findings with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Section 115 of the CAA authorizes EPA to require a state to revise its SIP under certain conditions to 

alleviate international transport into another country. There are no final findings under section 115 ofthe 

CAA against Iowa with respect to any air pollutant. Thus, the state's SIP does not need to include any 

provisions to meet the requirements of section 115. 

18 Analysis by Mark Schmidt, OAQPS, "Ambient Ph's Contribution to Class I Area Visibility Impairment," June 17, 2011. 

13 
that SIPs provide for the following: (1) necessary assurances that the state (and other entities within the 

state responsible for implementing the SIP) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under 

state or local law to implement the SIP, and that there are no legal impediments to such implementation; 

(2) requirements that the state comply with the requirements relating to state boards, pursuant to section 

128 of the CAA; and (3) necessary assurances that the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of any plan provision for which it relies on local governments or other entities to carry 

out that portion of the plan. 

(1) Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to establish that they have adequate personnel, funding and 

authority. With respect to adequate authority, we have previously discussed Iowa's statutory and 

regulatory authority to implement the 2008 Pb NAAQS, primarily in the discussion of section 

11 O(a)(2)(A) above. Neither Iowa nor EPA has identified any legal impediments in the state's SIP to 

implementation of the NAAQS. 

With respect to adequate resources, IDNR asserts that it has adequate personnel to implement the SIP. 

IDNR is the designated agency over the atmosphere of the state to prevent, abate, or control air pollution 

by establishing standards for air quality and by regulating potential sources of air pollution through a 

system of general rules or specific permits (Iowa Code 455B.132 "Executive Agency," and 567 lAC 

Chapter 20.1- "Scope ofTitle.) 

The IDNR Air Quality Bureau is staffed with environmental specialists that are divided in to five 

sections: Compliance and Monitoring, Construction Permits, Emissions and Support, Operating 

Permits, and Program Development. These sections are under the supervision of the Bureau Chief. The 

Legal Services Bureau is under the supervision ofiDNR's Legal Services Bureau. 

Funding and authority to implement the SIP is outlined in the portion on 110(a)(2)(A). The program's 

budget is funded by the State General Fund, EPA grants authorized under the CAA sections 1 03 and 

105, and Title V fees. Information with regard to Title V fees is provided under section 110(a)(2)(L). 

EPA conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate resources and funding to 

implement the SIP. 

(2) Section 11 O(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each state SIP meet the requirements of CAA section 128, 

relating to representation on state boards and conflicts of interest by members of such boards. Section 

128(a)(1) requires that any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA 

must have at least a majority of members who the public interest" and "do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under the 

CAA." Section 128(a)(2) requires that members of such a board or body, or the head of an agency with 

similar powers, adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest. In 1978, EPA issued a guidance 

memorandum recommending ways that states could meet the requirements of section 128, including 

14 
section 128(a)(1) requirements applicable to multiple person board members. EPA has not issued 

regulations of general applicability concerning section 128. We are utilizing these guidance documents 

and prior actions to inform our evaluation of Iowa's SIP submissions for compliance with section 128, 

but where the Iowa state law provides another adequate way to meet the statutory requirements of 

section 128 we explain that below. 

In today's action, we are proposing to approve IDNR's May 4, 2015, submission with respect to the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128 ofthe CAA. These statutes and rules were 

made available for public comment on April1, 2015, with a public hearing on May 1, 2015. No 

comments were received. 

A brief description of the May 4, 2015, submission and attachments follow (all documents in their 

entirety are included in the docket of this rulemaking and are discussed in detail in this technical support 

document): 

Note: Descriptions of the Iowa Code and lAC are included in page 8 of this document 

Iowa Code 4.4 PRESUMPTION OF ENACTMENT, (5) Public interest is favored over any private 

interest. 

Iowa Code 7E.4 DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH 

ORGANIZATION. 

Iowa Code 68B GOVERNMENT ETHICS AND LOBBYING ACT. This chapter was included in the 

SIP revision in its entirety; specific sections that apply to this proposed rulemaking as it applies to CAA 

section 128 are as follows: 

68B.2 Definitions that apply for the purposes of this proposed rulemaking includes, 1. "Agency," 2. 

"Agency of state government" or "state agency," 7. "Compensation," 9. "Gifts," 10. Honorarium," 11. "Immediate family members," 17. "Official," and 23. "Regulatory agency." 

68B.2A Prohibited outside employment and activities- Conflicts of interest. This section addresses 

prohibited conduct/activities as applied to any person who serves, is employed by the state or a political 

subdivision of the state. 

68B.4 Sales or leases by regulatory agency officials and employees. This section addresses prohibited 

conduct/activities of officials or employees of any regulatory agency with regard to selling or leasing 

either directly, or indirectly, any goods or services to individuals, associations, or corporations subject to 

the regulatory authority of the agency of which the person is an official or employee. 

19 See Memorandum from David 0. Bickart to Regional Air Directors, "Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict oflnterest 

Requirements of Section 128," Suggested Definitions, March 2, 1978. 

15 
employees. 

Iowa Administrative Code: 351 lAC 6.14(2) Member ofboard or commission. 

Iowa Administrative Code: 3 51 lAC 6.19 ( 68B) Prohibition on receipt of an honorarium. 

Iowa Administrative Code: 351 lAC 7.1 (68B) Filing requirements and procedures, and 7.2 (68B) 

Information disclosed on form. 

Iowa Administrative Code: 567 lAC 1.11 (68B) (1)- (9) Sales of goods and services. 

Finally, Article 1, section 2 of the Iowa Constitution, Political Power, was included as part of the SIP 

submission 

IDNR has been designated under Iowa Code 4558.132 "Executive Agency," as the agency that 

administers the air quality program in the state of Iowa. Iowa Code 455A.6 "Environmental Protection 

Commission- Appointments and Duties," established the state's EPC. The EPC has the authority to 

establish policy for the department, adopt rules, hear appeals in contested cases, and approve budget 

requests. Therefore, the EPC must satisfy the requirements of sections 128(a)(l) and (2). As the head of 

an executive agency with similar powers, the Director of IDNR must satisfy the requirements of section 

128(a)(2). 

Section 128(a)(l) contains two separate requirements applicable to any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. First, a majority of members of the board or body must 

"represent the public interest" ("public interest" requirement). Second, a majority of members must "not 

derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders" 

("significant income" requirement). 

With respect to the "public interest" requirement, EPA notes that this term is not clearly defined in the 

CAA and it requires some interpretation to reach a conclusion as to whether a particular state's laws 

meet the requirement. Iowa in its May 4, 2015 submission included article 1, section 2 of the Iowa State 

Constitution. Article 1, section 2 states: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is 

instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right, at all times, to 

alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it." Iowa's May 4, 2015, SIP 

submission confirms that the EPC is a governmental body required to serve for the protection, security, 

and benefit of the people, and therefore is subject to article 1, section 2. In addition, members of the 

EPC are subject to certain restrictions on deriving income that might otherwise provide a motivation for 

voting on EPC agenda items in a way that might not be in the public interest, described below in the 

context of the "significant income" requirement. With respect to the public interest requirement, these 

16 
notes that this term is not clearly defined in the CAA and it requires some interpretation to reach a 

conclusion as to whether a particular state's laws meet the requirement. We believe that taken as a whole 

Iowa law meets the significant income requirements. Because Iowa Code section 68B.2 defines 

"agency" in a manner that includes the IDNR, the EPC commissioners must comply with ethics 

requirements, gift restrictions, and the conflict of interest requirements as outlined in Iowa Code section 

68B and the rules promulgated in the lAC sections 351 and 567. Specifically, Iowa Code section 68B 

requires the following: (1) a commissioner or immediate family member shall not derive any benefit 

from taking any official action or performing any official duty (section 68B.2A(1)(b));_(2) a 

commissioner shall not engage in outside employment that is subject to official control, inspection, 

review, audit, or enforcement authority during the performance of commissioner's duties of office or 

employment (section 68B.2A(1)(c)); and (3) if a conflict as described in Iowa Code section 

68B.2A(1)(c) exists, the commissioner shall either cease the outside employment or activity or disclose 

the conflict and refrain from taking any official action that would detrimentally affect or create a benefit 

for the outside employment or activity (section 68B.2A(2)). Iowa Code section 688.23 and lAC 351-

6.11 prohibit commissioners from receiving honoraria from restricted donors, who are defined in part, as 

those persons who will be directly and substantially affected financially by the agency's actions.20 An 

honorarium, as defined in Iowa Code section 688.2(10) is anything of value that is accepted or given as 

consideration for an appearance, speech, or article. A commissioner or immediate family member shall 

not receive gifts from a restricted donor (section 688.22). The lAC prohibits commissioners from 

receiving compensation to appear on behalf of any person or otherwise render services against the 

interest of the state in relation to any case before the subunit of the state agency in which the member 

serves or is employed (in the case of a commissioner, the EPC) or with which the member has 

substantial and regular contact as part of the member's state duties (lAC 351-6.14(1)). 

In addition, Iowa Code section 688.4, as well as lAC 351-6.11 and 567-1.11(1), preclude EPC members 

from selling or leasing, either directly or indirectly, any goods or services to individuals, associations, or 

corporations subject to the regulatory authority of the IDNR or EPC, except when all of the following 

four listed conditions are met. 

1. The consent of the regulatory agency for which the person is an official or employee is 

obtained and the person is not the official or employee with the authority to determine 

whether agency consent is to be given. 

2. The duties or functions performed by the official or employee for the regulatory agency 

are not related to the regulatory authority of the agency over the individual, association, 

or corporation (e.g., a party subject to permits or enforcement orders), or the selling or 

leasing of goods or services by the official or employee to the individuals, associations, 

or corporations does not affect the official's or employee's duties or functions at the 

regulatory agency. 

20 EPA notes that the definition of"restricted donor" in Iowa Code section 68B.2 is such that not all persons subject to 

pennits or enforcement orders under the CAA may fall within the defmition at all times. The definition does clearly include 

any person with a particular pennit or enforcement order currently before the EPC. 

17 
or corporation. 

Iowa's submission of May 4, 2015, states that EPC members are precluded from deriving a significant 

portion of income resulting from sales of goods or services and/or honoraria from persons subject to 

permits or enforcement orders. EPA understands this statement to be a declaration that the collective 

effect of the provisions cited above, all of which have been formally submitted for approval into Iowa's 

SIP, is to effectively preclude EPC members from receiving a significant portion of their income from 

such sources. EPA agrees with this conclusion, for the reasons explained below. 

First, we note that lAC section 567-1.11 establishes the criteria and procedures for a commissioner to 

obtain approval of the IDNR to sell goods or services to a party subject to the authority of the 

department. Section 567-1.11 ( 5) provides for general conditions for case-by-case consent by IDNR, and 

mirrors the four conditions oflowa Code section 68B.4 listed above. Section 567-1.11 ( 6)(b) provides 

categorical approval for specific types of sales. Regarding the categorical approvals listed in section 

567-1.11(6)(b), that section includes a clause stating that further approval is not needed unless there are 

unique facts surrounding a particular sale which would cause that sale to affect the official's duties or 

functions, would give the buyer an advantage in its dealings with the IDNR, or otherwise present a 

conflict of interest. Thus, EPC members must obtain specific approval from the Director of IDNR for 

any particular sale meeting one or more of these descriptions, the first and last of which clearly are 

relevant to the significance of the income in the context of the EPC members' official duties. While 

section 567-1.11(6)(b) has no explicit ceilings on the amount of income obtained from categorically 

approved sales that do not trigger this exclusion provision, section 567-11.11 (9) provides that regardless 

of IDNR approval on a case-by-case or categorical basis it remains the responsibility of a commissioner 

to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of 

impropriety. IDNR made an implicit representation in its May 4, 2015 submission, by incorporating into 

the SIP Iowa Code section 68B that requires EPC members to meet all ofthe provisions ofthe EPA's 

March 2, 1978 guidance on conflict of interest requirements. While Iowa Code section 68B does not 

actually explicitly mirror the language of EPA's 1978 guidance, in light of these statements by IDNR it 

would at least present the appearance of impropriety, if not an actual impropriety, for a commissioner 

derive a significant portion of income from persons or businesses subject to IDNR permits or 

enforcement orders if doing so would mean that a majority of members do so.21 

Second, we note that the four conditions of Iowa Code section 68B.4 listed above must each be met. The 

second condition is particularly relevant, and provides for the condition to be met in either of two ways. 

The first way is not applicable to EPC commissioners, because the duties of an EPC commissioner are 

clearly related to permits and enforcement orders. Therefore, an EPC commissioner must satisfy the 

21 EPA does not mean to say or imply that there is any impropriety or appearance of impropriety on the part of any EPC 

member if fewer than a majority of the EPC derives a significant portion of income from persons or businesses subject to 

IDNR permits or enforcement orders. EPA anticipates than any EPC members who do so or who are considering doing so 

will make appropriate inquiries of fellow members or of the EPC chair to determine whether the majority point has already 

been or would be reached. 

18 
Accordingly, EPA is today proposing to approve the May 11, 2015, State's section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

submission as meeting the requirement to ensure that the SIP requires at least a majority of the members 

of the EPC to not derive a significant portion of their income from parties subject to permits and 

enforcement orders, as required by section 128(a)(1) ofthe CAA. 

CAA section 128(a)(2), which concerns disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, is satisfied by Iowa 

Code sections 68B.2A and 688.35. As described above, these sections of the Iowa Code apply to the 

members of the EPC. In addition, section 68B.2A applies to any person employed by the state, including 

the IDNR Director, and section 688.35 also applies to the IDNR Director. As such, Iowa law meets the 

requirement of 128( a)(2) that conflicts of interest of board members or heads of an executive agency 

with similar powers be adequately disclosed. 

EPA notes that, separate from the State's submittal described above, EPA reviewed a legal opinion 

issued from the Iowa Attorney General on November 3, 1993, regarding the legal authority oflowa laws 

to carry out the operating permits program pursuant to Title V of the CAA. Among other things, the 

opinion discussed whether Iowa laws were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 128. The 

Attorney General certified that Iowa Code section 688.35 (Personal financial disclosure- certain 

officials, members ofthe general assembly, and candidates) satisfies the requirements of section 

128(a)(2) of the CAA, as it requires that any potential conflicts of interest by members of the EPC or the 

head ofiDNR be adequately disclosed. Iowa Code section 688.35 requires that the members of the 

EPC, and the director of the IDNR, file a financial statement listing each business, occupation, or 

profession in which the person is engaged and the nature of that business, occupation, or profession, and 

a list of sources of income for each source producing more than one thousand dollars annually in gross 

income. Thus, the Attorney General concluded that the financial statement required by Iowa Code 

section 688.35 lists potential conflicts of interest and is consistent with the requirements of section 

128(a)(2) of the CAA. 

In the 1993 opinion, the Attorney General concluded that, while the certification was unnecessary for 

the approval of the Title V program, she was unable to certify that the laws of the State of Iowa ensured 

that a majority of the members of the EPC represent the public interest and do not derive any significant 

portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under their jurisdiction in 

compliance with section 128(a)(1) of the CAA. However, the Attorney General focused her opinion 

primarily on the 1986 repeal offormer Iowa Code section 4558.104(5)22, and the opinion did not 

22 Former Iowa Code 455B.l 04(5) provided: "The members of the commission shall represent the public interest and at least 

a majority of the commission membership shall not derive more than ten percent of their income from any person subject to 

permits or enforcement orders under this chapter. A potential conflict of interest by a commission member shall be 

immediately disclosed to the commission and the department. In the case of conflict of interest, the commission member 

involved shall immediately withdraw from consideration of the issuance of a permit or enforcement action by the 

commission and shall not express an opinion on the matter to any other commission member involved in the consideration of 

the issuance of the permit or enforcement action. A "conflict of interest" arises when a commission member receives directly 

or indirectly personal income from a person subject to permit or enforcement action pending before the commission." 

19 
that the Attorney General did not believe that the statutorily prescribed composition of the EPC was ipso 

facto inconsistent with CAA section 128(a)(1), but that she was unable to certify at that time that Iowa 

had sufficient statutory provisions that meet the requirements of CAA section 128( a)( 1 ). Again, the 

letter indicates that the Attorney General was basing her opinion primarily on the 1986 repeal of former 

Iowa Code section 455B.104(5), and the opinion did not reference other constitutional, statutory, and 

regulatory provisions that existed at the time of the letter and that IDNR has now submitted in support of 

its SIP submission with respect to section 128(a)(1). For the reasons explained in this notice we believe 

that these other Iowa constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions satisfy the requirements of 

section 128(a)(1). Both opinions of the Attorney General are available in the public docket for this 

proposed action. 

In summary, EPA believes that Iowa's Constitution, statutes, and agency rules taken together insure 

EPC commission members represent the public interest and prohibit commissioners from receiving a 

significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders. In addition, 

all commission members and the Director of IDNR are required to adequately disclose potential 

conflicts of interest. 

(3) With respect to assurances that the state has responsibility to adequately implement the SIP 

when it authorizes local or other agencies to carry out portions of the plan, this is addressed 

in Iowa Code 455B.l44, "Local Control Program," 455B.145, "Acceptance ofLocal 

Program," and 4558.146, "Civil Action for Compliance- Local Program Actions." 

IDNR delegated the duties for the abatement, control and prevention of air pollution to the Linn County 

Health Department Air Quality Division and the Polk County Board of Health, Air Quality Division, for 

each ofthe respective counties in 1989 (54 FR 33526, August 15, 1989, and 54 FR 33528, August 15, 

1989, respectively). This authority is not to be construed to limit the power of the IDNR director to 

issue state permits or to take other actions necessary for the continued proper administration of the air 

pollution programs. 

IDNR and the Linn and Polk County local air programs annually negotiate and sign comprehensive 

letters of agreement or contracts with IDNR. Program emphasis is placed on the collection and 

assessment of information regarding air quality, permitting of sources of air emissions, enforcement of 

emission limits, and the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards. With regard to 

PSD permits, local programs can draft permits, but IDNR retains the authority to issue PSD permits. 

Funding for activities in the scope of work under each of the local contracts is paid for by a portion of 

the IDNR's EPA grants under sections 103 and 105 of the CAA and Title V fees. The Linn County and 

Polk County local air programs regularly submit SIP revisions to IDNR, and IDNR reviews and submits 

to EPA so local air quality rules are as stringent as the IDNR SIP, and therefore federally-approved. 

IDNR conducts biennial local air program reviews and provides copies to EPA Region 7. 

20 
shall require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of 

other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources, to monitor emissions from such 

sources. The SIP shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and requires that the state correlate the source reports with 

emission limitations or standards established under the CAA. These reports must be made available for 

public inspection at reasonable times. 

The federally-approved SIP, 567 lAC Chapter 25- "Measurement of Emissions," provides detailed 

requirements for owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions. Stack testing 

observation (Iowa Code 455B.134( 4) "Director-- Duties- Limitations") ensures the quality of 

emissions data and uses the data to determine compliance with emission limits. The data quality may be 

assured through field test audits and reviewing test reports by IDNR personnel. The field audits consist 

of making sure the correct methodology is followed, approving on-site variations, ensuring the tested 

emission source is operating in an acceptable manner, and answering questions posed by the testing 

group and the facility. The report review verifies the test results by checking the calculations and lab 

analysis. A stack test summary is generated and the compliance status of the emission point is 

determined. 

IDNR also receives and reviews annual compliance certification and semi-annual monitoring reports 

required under the Title V program (Iowa Code 4558.133(8), 567 lAC Chapter 22 - "Controlling 

Pollution".) Information collected through emission inventories are submitted to EPA in accordance 

with the Federal Air Emissions Reporting rule. 

IDNR uses this information to track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, developing control and 

maintenance strategies, identifying sources and general emission levels, and determining compliance 

with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. The reports are available to the public at the 

IDNR's Records Center during normal business hours with some reports available electronically. 

Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant 

statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Iowa's 

SIP, EPA believes that Iowa has adequately addressed the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(F) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the November 4, 2011, submission. 

(G) Emergency authority: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires SIPs to provide for authority to address 

activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment 

(comparable to the authorities provided in section 303 of the CAA), and to include contingency plans to 

implement such authorities as necessary. 

21 
Based on EPA's experience to date with the Pb NAAQS and designated Ph nonattainment areas, EPA 

expects that an emergency event involving Pb would be unlikely, and if it were to occur, would be the 

result of a malfunction or other emergency situation at a relatively large source ofPb. Accordingly, EPA 

believes that the central components of a contingency plan would be to reduce emissions from the 

source at issue (if necessary, by curtailing operations) and providing public communication as needed. 

Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant 

statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in that submission or referenced in Iowa's 

SIP, EPA believes that the Iowa SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(G) for 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the November 4, 2011, submission. 

(H) Future SIP revisions: Section 11 O(a)(2)(H) requires states to have the authority to revise their 

SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, 

or in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS. 

As previously discussed, Iowa Code 4558.132 "Executive Agency," designates IDNR as the Agency to 

prevent, abate, or control air pollution. The EPC is the governing commission of the environmental 

services portion of IDNR (Iowa Code 455A.6 "Environmental protection commission- appointment 

and duties"). 

The EPC has the duty and authority to develop plans for abatement, control and prevention of air 

pollution, which includes emission limits and schedules for compliance. As outlined in Iowa Code 

4558.133 "Duties" 1-4, the EPC also adopts, amends, or repeals emission limits relating to the 

maximum quantities of air contaminants that may be emitted from an air contaminant source. 

IDNR is required to adopt, amend or repeal rules pertaining to the evaluation, abatement, control and 

prevention of air pollution which may be necessary to ensure that Iowa complies with section 110 of the 

CAA (Iowa Code 455B.133 "Duties" (2)). This includes a requirement to revise rules as necessary to 

respond to a revised NAAQS and to respond to EPA findings of substantial inadequacy. 

In accordance with the Director's duties, Iowa Code 4558.134 "Director- Duties- Limitations," 

meetings are to be convened no later than June 1 during the second calendar year following the adoption 

of new or revised NAAQS by the EPA, to review emission limitations or standards relating to the 

maximum quantities of air contaminants that may be emitted from any air contaminant source as 

provided in section Iowa Code 455B.133 "Duties", subsection 4. 

IDNR has traditionally requested stakeholder input when implementing a new or revised NAAQS. This 

approach was codified in 2010 in Iowa Code 455B.l34 "Director- Duties- Limitations" (14), which 

instructs the DNR to convene meetings to review emission limitations or standards relating to the 

maximum quantities of a pollutant that can be emitted from a source. 

22 
2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the November 4, 2011, submission. 

(I) Nonattainment areas: Section 11 O(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for 

areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, 

relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas. 

As noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address subsection (1). The 

specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are 

subject to different submission schedules than those for section 11 0 infrastructure elements. Instead, 

EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed 

by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D. 

(J) Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection: 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of the following CAA provisions: 

(1) section 121, relating to interagency consultation regarding certain CAA requirements; (2) section 

127, relating to public notification ofNAAQS exceedances and related issues; and (3) part C of the · 

CAA, relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection. 

(1) With respect to interagency consultation, the SIP should provide a process for consultation 

with general-purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials oflocal 

governments, and any Federal Land Manager having authority over federal land to which the 

SIP applies. 

IDNR has the duty and authority and resources to meet the requirements of section 121 including 

consultation for controls, air quality maintenance plan requirements, or preconstruction 

review. IDNR is also required to provide a satisfactory process of consultation with local government, 

designated organizations of elected officials of local governments such as council of governments, and 

applicable federal land managers to carry out the consultation requirements of section 121 

(455B.133(1,4)). 

IDNR holds quarterly air quality client contact meetings to focus on current and upcoming air program 

issues and changes to meet these requirements. The meetings provide an open forum for stakeholders 

and the general public to discuss new state and federal air quality rules or air program developments and 

are a good source of information for anyone who works with or has an interest in activities related to air 

quality. · 

The IDNR's Environmental Services Division (ESD) holds a monthly client contact group meeting prior 

to the EPC meetings. The ESD client contact group is an open forum to discuss issues related to all of 

the department's environmental programs. 

23 
provisions for public notification of elevated PM2.s and other air pollutant levels, and measures which 

can be taken by the public to reduce concentrations. In addition, information regarding air pollution and 

related issues, is provided on an IDNR website, 

http://www.iowadnr.gov/InsideDNR/RegulatoryAir/MonitoringAmbientAir.aspx 

(3) With regard to consultation with regard to PSD and visibility protection, IDNR provides a 

copy of a PSD permit to EPA prior to the start ofthe public comment process. Public 

notifications of proposed PSD projects are published in the Des Moines Register's Legal 

Publications and in the legal publication section of the newspaper with the largest circulation 

in the area of the PSD source. The notification contains the notice of application; preliminary 

determination; degree of increment consumption; opportunity for comment at a public 

hearing as well as written comment. A copy of the notice of public comments is then sent to 

the applicant; the regional EPA office, the IDNR Field Offices; and officials and agencies 

having an interest in the proposed construction. Examples of such officials and agencies 

include but are not limited to the following: chief executives of the city and county (i.e., 

mayor, city administrator, board of supervisors, health department); any comprehensive 

regional land use planning agency; state or federal land manager and any Indian governing 

body whose lands may be affected by the emissions from the source or modification (567 

lAC Chapter 33.3(17)- "Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for 

Major Stationary Sources- Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality.") 

Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Ph NAAQS, and relevant 

statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Iowa's 

SIP, EPA believes that Iowa has adequately addressed the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 

2008 Ph NAAQS in the state and is therefore proposing to approve this element of the November 4, 

2011, submission. 

(K) Air quality and modeling/data: Section 11 O(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for performing air 

quality modeling, as prescribed by EPA, to predict the effects on ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any NAAQS pollutant, and for submission of such data to EPA upon request. 

The IDNR has the authority to conduct air dispersion modeling to complete ambient air impact analyses 

(Iowa Code 455B.133 "Air Contaminant Source Fund Created" (1-2)). Air dispersion modeling analyses 

are used to predict ground level ambient air concentrations of pollutants and compare those levels to 

ambient air quality standards. As previously discussed, IDNR is prohibited from issuing a permit if the 

project would result in violation of emission limits or other provisions in the federally-approved SIP. 

24 
40 CFR Part 51. IDNR has the authority to collection and report data to EPA, upon request (Iowa Code 

455B.134 "Director- Duties- Limitations" (5,7)). 

Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant 

statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Iowa's 

SIP, EPA believes that Iowa has adequately addressed the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(K) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the November 4, 2011, submission. 

(L) Permitting Fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay 

permitting fees to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, to 

cover the cost of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and, if the permit is 

issued, the costs of implementing and enforcing the terms of the permit. The fee requirement applies 

until a fee program established by the state pursuant to Title V of the CAA, relating to operating permits, 

is approved by EPA. 

The Title V program requires permit holders to pay a fee sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and 

indirect costs required to develop and administer the Title V program requirements (42 U.S.C.7661a). 

The CAA (Section 502(b)(3)(A)) and the Code ofFederal Regulations (40 CFR 79.0) outlines expected 

Title V program activities and allows states some flexibility in how they design their Title V programs 

and fee schedules. IDNR uses the EPA guidance, "Matrix ofTitle V-Related and Air Grant Eligible 

Activities" to determine which program activities are necessary for the development and implementation 

of a Title V operating permit program (Iowa Code 455B.133 "Duties" (8)). 

In Iowa, the Title V fee is currently based on the first 4,000 chargeable tons of each regulated air 

pollutant emitted each year from each major stationary source. No fees are paid for emissions in excess 

of 4,000 tons of each regulated air pollutant or on carbon monoxide emissions. Fees are deposited into 

the air contaminant source fund (Iowa Code 455B.133B "Air Contaminant Source Fund Created.") 

Each March, the IDNR presents an estimated or proposed budget to cover the reasonable cost of 

administering the Title V program, to the EPC. Each May, the EPC sets the Title V fee. The IDNR 

calculates the Title V fee by dividing the estimated budget for the upcoming state fiscal year by the 

chargeable emissions as reported by facilities each March 31. The annual fee must be set at or below the 

maximum Title V fee, which can be changed through administrative rulemaking (567 lAC Chapter 

22.106(1)- "Title V Permit Fees.") 

Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant 

statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Iowa's 

SIP, EPA believes that Iowa has adequately addressed the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) and is 

proposing to approve this of the November 4, 2011, submission. 

25 
Local Program.") 

The local programs are required to meet all the requirements of 567 lAC Chapter 27- "Certificate of 

Acceptance" to keep their status. The local programs issue permits, perform compliance inspections, 

respond to air quality complaints, and maintain a network of monitors for ambient air in each respective 

county. 

The local programs have adopted air quality ordinances for their areas of jurisdiction to implement 

federal, state, and local air pollution control requirements. The ordinances cannot be less stringent than federal or state standards; however, they can be more stringent. The ordinances are incorporated into the 

SIP in the same manner that the lAC is incorporated in the SIP. Local program rulemakings are also 

published on the IDNR's website and the Iowa Administrative Bulletin. 

Each year IDNR negotiates an agreement to pass through federal funds and provide Title V funds 

sufficient to implement the programs. Revenue from local fee systems provides additional funding and 

required match to a portion of the pass through federal funds. The contracts are approved by the EPC for 

each new state fiscal year. IDNR conducts periodic audits to ensure the local programs are meeting all 

requirements of the contract. 

Both the IDNR and the local programs' administrative processes provide a public comment period. The 

comment period provides an opportunity for the public and other local political subdivisions that may be 

affected by the plan to comment. IDNR frequently holds public meetings, like the quarterly air quality 

client contact meetings, of which local programs participate. The open forum allows all stakeholders and 

the general public to dialogue on a variety of topics. The IDNR also communicates using press releases, 

online reports and list serves. 

Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant 

statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Iowa's 

SIP, EPA believes that Iowa has adequately addressed the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(M) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element ofthe November 4, 2011, submission. 

26 
Record ofRulemaking Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

September 16, 2011 (also posted on the State oflowa's 

Notice of Intended Action Public Events Calendar on September 19, 2011) 

Public Hearing October 11, 2011 

Effective date of regulations October 31,2011 

Rule package received by EPA November 4, 2011 

Completeness determination May4, 2012 

Submission 2: 

Record ofRulemaking Iowa Department ofNatural Resources 

Notice of Intended Action April 2, 2015 

Public Hearing May 1, 2015 

Effective date of regulations May 1, 2015 

Rule package received by EPA May 4, 2015 (electronic original documents) 

Completeness determination May6, 2015 

Rule package received by EPA May 11, 2015 (hard copy) 

27