Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43681

Federal SIP approval does not impose

any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-state relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids the EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under section 205, the EPA must select

the most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

approval action proposed does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves preexisting requirements

under state or local law and imposes no

new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: August 4, 1997.

Michael J. Sanderson,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–21695 Filed 8-14-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IA 031–1031; FRL–5875–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) submitted by the state of Iowa to

achieve attainment of the primary

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) for

Muscatine County, Iowa. The SIP was

submitted to satisfy the requirements of

section 110 and part D of title I of the

Clean Air Act (Act), and regulates

certain sources of SO2 emissions in

Muscatine, Iowa. The effect of the EPA’s

proposed action is to make this revision

to the Iowa SIP federally enforceable.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Wayne Kaiser, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551–7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On March 10, 1994, the EPA

published a document in the Federal

Register (59 FR 11193) designating a

portion of Muscatine County, Iowa,

nonattainment for SO2. Additional

information on the events leading to

nonattainment designation are

contained in the Technical Support

Document (TSD) which accompanied

that document.

Areas designated nonattainment are

subject to section 110 and part D of title

I of the Act. On June 13, 1996, and April

25, 1997, the state of Iowa submitted

information satisfying these

requirements. An evaluation of the

adequacy of this submittal with the

Federal requirements is discussed

below.

II. Description and Analysis of State

Submittal

In 1991 and 1992 there were

violations of the primary SO2 NAAQS at

one of three state air monitors in

Muscatine, Iowa. This resulted in

designation of a portion of Muscatine

County as nonattainment in 1994. The

state determined that there were two

major emission sources contributing to

the violations of the NAAQS. They were

Grain Processing Corporation (GPC), a

wet grain milling facility, and

Muscatine Power and Water (MPW), a

municipal power plant. In the course of

modeling the impacts of these emission

sources, it was also determined that a

third source, Monsanto Corporation,

contributed to a modeled violation of

the SO2 NAAQS in the vicinity of its

own facility.

The state of Iowa’s Department of

Natural Resources negotiated emission

reductions with GPC, MPW, and

Monsanto. The reductions were

incorporated into revised construction

permits. These permits have been

submitted as a part of the section 110

SIP revision and thus will be federally

enforceable when approved by the EPA.

The normal process for establishing a

control strategy for an area where a

NAAQS violation has occurred is to

conduct an air dispersion modeling

analysis to determine the degree of

emissions reductions required by the

sources contributing to the monitored

violations.

The NAAQS violations occurred at

the Musser Park monitor, which is

located north of and nearest to the GPC

facility. Two additional monitors, one

located further north of the sources, and

one located to the south near MPW,

have never recorded any violations of

the NAAQS.

Dispersion modeling performed by

the state using the EPA’s Industrial

Source Complex (ISC) model

significantly under predicted monitored

values at the Musser Park monitor, but

was highly accurate at the other

downwind monitoring site.

Consequently, the state initially used an

alternative methodology, roll-back

analysis, to estimate emission rates

needed to attain the NAAQS at the

Musser Park monitoring site. A roll-back

analysis takes a monitored ambient

exceedance recorded during a specific

set of facility operating conditions and

determines the amount of the

exceedance due to each of the source’s

SO2 emitting operations in use at that

time. The estimates are then linearly

‘‘rolled back’’ to acceptable SO2

emission limits which provide for

attainment of the NAAQS under that set

of operating conditions. Ultimately, the

state, GPC, and MPW negotiated

reductions of allowable emissions of 24

percent and 60 percent, respectively,

and reductions of actual emissions of 4

percent and 13 percent, respectively.

These emission reductions were

incorporated into revised construction

permits for each source. These permits

are proposed for approval as part of this
43682 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules

SIP revision and thus will be federally

enforceable. The TSD for this action

contains further information on the

modeling analysis and the

establishment of the final emission

limits.

Although the ISC model was not

sufficiently accurate to be the basis for

the control strategy at GPC and MPW, it

was judged to be reliable for predicted

emissions in the vicinity of the

Monsanto facility. Modeling here

indicated one small area of

nonattainment on plant property to

which the public had access. Monsanto

agreed to accept emission limits and

operating conditions in its permits to

eliminate the modeled exceedances of

the SO2 NAAQS.

The emission limits imposed upon

the sources are contained in the

following permits:

GPC Permits dated September 18, 1995:

#95-A–374; Boilers 1,2,3,5,6,7, #74-A–

015-S; Source 97, Wet Milling No. 3

Germ Drier, #79-A–194-S; Source 15,

Wet Milling Nos. 1 and 2 Germ Driers,

#79-A–195-S; Source 126, Wet Milling

No. 4 Germ Drier. Permit #95-A–374

contains the requirement for the

installation of a continuous emission

monitor (CEM) on the stack servicing

the permitted boilers.

MPW Permits dated September 14,

1995: #74-A–175-S; Boiler 7, #95-A–

373; Boiler 8. Permit #74-A–175

requires the installation of a CEM on

boiler stack 7. The CEMs provide for

continuous measurement of SO2

emissions and the subsequent

determination of compliance with the

permit emission limits. All permits

contain the state’s standard

notification, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements.

Monsanto Permits dated July 18, 1996:

#76-A–265-S3; B–6 Boiler, and #76-

A–161-S3; B–7 Boiler.

III. Nonattainment Plan Provisions

(Part D, Section 172(c))

The following discusses how the

submission complies with the pertinent

provisions of the General Preamble for

Implementation of title I of the 1990

Amendments and the SO2 Guideliine

Document, as well as section 172(c) of

the Act, which sets forth the

requirements for part D SO2 SIPs.

Section 172(c)(1)—In General. The

plan complies with the requirements to

implement reasonably available control

measures by providing for expeditious

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS through

the emission limits imposed on the

sources by enforceable permits.

Section 172(c)(2)—Reasonable Further

Progress (RFP). Section 171(l) of the

amended Act defines RFP as ‘‘such

annual incremental reductions in

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as

are required by (part D) or may

reasonable be required by the EPA for

the purpose of ensuring attainment of

the applicable national ambient air

quality standard by the applicable

date.’’ As discussed in the General

Preamble for SO2 (57 FR 13547), there

is usually a single ‘‘step’’ between

precontrol nonattainment and

postcontrol attainment. Therefore, for

SO2, with its discernible relationship

between emissions and air quality and

significant and immediate air quality

improvement, RFP is construed as

‘‘adherence to an ambitious compliance

schedule.’’

The state has met the requirement to

implement reasonably available control

measures and RFP by providing for

expeditious attainment of the SO2

NAAQS through the establishment of

emissions limits and operating

restrictions imposed on the sources by

the state construction permits submitted

as part of the state plan. Implementation

plans required under section 191(a)

shall provide for attainment as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than five years from the date of the

nonattainment designation, in this case

by March 1999. However, the state

permits required compliance (and

attainment) by March 15, 1996. The

sources met this compliance date, and

the EPA believes that this date was as

expeditious as practicable.

Section 172(c)(3)—Inventory. This

section of the Act requires that

nonattainment plan provisions include

a comprehensive, accurate, current

inventory of actual emissions from all

sources of relevant pollutants in the

nonattainment area. The emission

inventory also should include a

comprehensive, accurate, and current

inventory of allowable emissions in the

area.

A detailed emission inventory was

included in the state—s submittal. In

order to better quantify actual emission

from the 100 ‘‘nontraditional’’ sources at

GPC, source testing was conducted on

two occasions on a number of

representative emission points. In

addition to the four major sources in the

area, an emissions inventory was

obtained for modeling purposes from

three additional minor sources in

Muscatine, and from 36 sources outside

of Muscatine but within 50 kilometers.

Section 172(c)(5)—Permits for New

and Modified Major Stationary Sources.

Section 172(c)(5) and section 173 of the

amended Act contains SIP requirements

for state construction permitting

programs. Any new or modified major

stationary source constructed in a

nonattainment area must comply with

the state submitted and federally

approved New Source Review (NSR)

Program. The state has an approved

NSR program. However, revisions were

required to make the state rules

compliant with the 1990 Amendments.

The state adopted revisions and the EPA

approved them in Federal Register

documents dated June 23, 1995, and

October 30, 1995. The EPA action

proposing approval of the state’s

emission offset rule has been published

and a final action is pending.

Section 172(c)(6)—Other Measures.

This section states that SIP provisions

shall include enforceable emission

limitations, and such other control

measures, means or techniques, as well

as schedules and timetables for

compliance as may be necessary, to

provide for attainment by the applicable

attainment date.

The state SIP provides for expeditious

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS through

the emission limits and operating

restrictions that are set forth in the

permits issued by the state. The

emission reductions contained in these

documents should ensure that the area

continues to attain the NAAQS.

Section 172(c)(7)—Compliance with

Section 110(a)(2). This section contains

general requirements for nonattainment

plans. The state has met these

requirements. The SIP contains

enforceable permits which ensure

attainment of the NAAQS. The state has

committed to continue its existing

ambient monitoring network; it has an

approved parts C and D permit program

(final approval of the state’s emission

offset rule is pending); and it has

authority to prevent construction of a

source which will contribute

significantly to nonattainment in, or

interfere with maintenance by, any

other state with respect to the NAAQS.

It also has demonstrated it has adequate

personnel, funding, and authority under

state law to carry out the provisions of

the SIP. With respect to section

110(a)(2)(K), under which the EPA

generally requires modeling in the case

of SO2 and other pollutants (to

demonstrate attainment as required by

other provisions of section 110(a) and

part D), the EPA notes that the ISC

model used by the state has been shown

to under predict ambient SO2

concentrations at the Musser Park

monitor on known exceedance days.

Therefore, as described in more detail

above, a negotiated reduction of the

permitted emission limits was

established.

Section 172(c)(8)—Equivalent

Techniques. This section provides that
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43683

the EPA may allow the state to use

equivalent modeling, emission

inventory, and planning procedures in

its SIP unless the EPA determines they

are less effective than procedures

approved by the Administrator. Since

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS could not

be demonstrated for all portions of the

nonattainment area by modeling (for

technical reasons described above and

in more detail in the TSD), reductions

in both allowable and actual limits were

determined for the affected sources

based generally on rollback calculations.

The EPA believes that this procedure is

no less effective than other procedures

approved by the Administrator since it

results in enforceable reductions in both

potential and actual emissions. In

addition, although not a basis for

approval of the attainment

demonstration, the EPA notes that no

monitored violations of the NAAQS

have been recorded since the reductions

have been implemented.

Section 172(c)(9)—Contingency

Measures. For SO2 programs, the EPA

interprets ‘‘contingency measures’’ to

mean that the state agency has a

comprehensive program to identify

sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS

and to undertake an aggressive followup for compliance and enforcement,

including expedited procedures for

establishing enforceable consent

agreements pending adoption of revised

SIPs.

The state has a comprehensive

program to identify sources of violations

of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an

aggressive follow-up for compliance and

enforcement. The state has statutory

authority to address any exceedances

and resultant violations of the NAAQS

that may be identified.

The state will continue to maintain

the network of the three SO2 ambient air

monitoring stations in the

nonattainment area. The state is

committed to quickly identifying when

exceedances occur and evaluating

which sources may be contributing to

such occurrences. Direct source

monitoring, using CEMs as required in

the permits issued to MPW and GPC

under this plan, is designed to ensure

that the emissions limitations in the

permit are not exceeded. Reporting

requirements established in those

permits provide the state with a

mechanism to consistently monitor the

operations of those sources.

Section 176(c)—Conformity. The EPA

promulgated final general conformity

regulations on November 30, 1993.

These regulations require the states to

adopt general conformity provisions in

the SIPs for areas designated

nonattainment or subject to a

maintenance plan approved under

section 175A of the Act. The state

submitted its general conformity SIP,

which the EPA approved on October 25,

1995. The state is not subject to the

transportation conformity requirements.

The state complied with the

procedural requirements for submittal of

SIPs pursuant to sections 110(a) and

110(l). The state provided for public

notice and comment as required. The

permits were approved by the Iowa

Environmental Protection Commission.

The SIP and related documentation was

submitted by the governor’s designee to

the EPA on June 13, 1996, and April 25,

1997.

The SIP submittal was reviewed by

the EPA to determine completeness in

accordance with the completeness

criteria set out in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V. The submittal was found

complete and the state was so notified

by an EPA letter dated July 16, 1996.

IV. Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve a

revision to the state SIP which

incorporates emission restrictions and

limitations on major SO2 sources in

Muscatine, Iowa, for the purpose of

assuring attainment and maintenance of

the SO2 NAAQS. The enforceable

permit conditions have been in effect

since March 15, 1996. There have been

no exceedances of the NAAQS since

September 1995.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5. U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the state is

already imposing. Therefore, because

the Federal SIP approval does not

impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-state relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids the EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under section 205, the EPA must select

the most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

approval action proposed does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves preexisting requirements

under state or local law, and imposes no

new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: July 24, 1997.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–21696 Filed 8-14-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F