[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11974-11990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4684]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0150, FRL-9638-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a 
limited approval of a revision to the Iowa State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) submitted by the State of Iowa on March 25, 2008, that addresses 
regional haze for the first implementation period. This revision 
addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and 
the EPA's rules that require States to prevent any future and remedy 
any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class 
I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources 
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional 
haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress 
toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in 
Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision 
to implement the regional haze requirements for Iowa on the basis that 
the revision, as a whole, strengthens the Iowa SIP. In a separate 
action, EPA previously proposed a limited disapproval of the Iowa 
regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze 
SIP arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate 
Rule (CAIR). Therefore, we are not taking action in this notice to 
address the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze 
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2012-0150, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#74031b18121106071611061311065a171c061d07341104155a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b6c74777d7e6968797e697c7e693578736972685b7e6b7a357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>.
    3. Fax: (913) 551-7864 (please alert the individual listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
    4. Mail: Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 
66101; attention: Chrissy Wolfersberger.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Air Planning and Development Branch, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, 
Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy Wolfersberger. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours 
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No.: EPA-R07-OAR-
2012-0150. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through 
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's 
public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air 
Planning and Development Branch, EPA Region 7 Office, 901 N 5th Street, 
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. You may view the hard copy of the 
docket

[[Page 11975]]

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Chrissy Wolfersberger at 901 N 5th 
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; by telephone at (913) 551-7864; or 
by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c7b0a8aba1a2b5b4a5a2b5a0a2b5e9a4afb5aeb487a2b7a6e9a0a8b1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbacb4b7bdbea9a8b9bea9bcbea9f5b8b3a9b2a89bbeabbaf5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the RHR
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
    G. Monitoring Strategy
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state of Iowa's submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Reasonable Progress Goals
    D. Long-term Strategy
    E. Consultation with Other States
    F. BART
    i. BART Eligible Sources
    ii. BART Subject Sources
    1. Non-EGUs (Electric Generating Units)
    2. EGU BART Evaluation for Particulate Matter (PM)
    G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
    H. Monitoring Strategy
    I. Emissions Inventory
    J. Reporting Requirements
    K. Consultation With FLMs
    L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. Proposed Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of Iowa's March 25, 2008, SIP 
revision addressing regional haze under CAA sections 301(a) and 
110(k)(6) because the revision as a whole strengthens the Iowa SIP.\1\ 
This proposed rulemaking and the accompanying Technical Support 
Document (TSD) explain the basis for EPA's proposed limited approval 
action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and the EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the 
entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient, and 
prevent the EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA 
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
    \2\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled, ``Technical Support 
Document for Iowa Regional Haze Submittal,'' is included in the 
public docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the 
Iowa regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional 
haze SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet 
certain regional haze requirements. 76 FR 82219. We are not proposing 
to take action in today's rulemaking on issues associated with Iowa's 
reliance on CAIR in its regional haze SIP. Comments on our proposed 
limited disapproval of Iowa's regional haze SIP may be directed to the 
docket for that rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 
and their precursors (e.g., SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and in some 
cases, ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). 
Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine 
particulate matter which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing 
light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible 
distance that one can see. PM<INF>2.5</INF> can also cause serious 
health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental 
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas 
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average 
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 
35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress set 
forth a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national 
parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a 
national goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any 
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Federal Class I areas 
\4\ in which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On 
December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility 
impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a 
single source or small group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment'' (45 FR 80084). These regulations 
represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment; EPA 
deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of 
sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the 
relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were 
improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with Section 169A of the CAA, the EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate additional areas 
as Class I areas, which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress added section 169B to 
focus attention on regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 
address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR 
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into

[[Page 11976]]

the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and 
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I 
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 
51.309, are included in the Federal visibility protection regulations 
at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze 
requirements are summarized in Section III of this preamble. The 
requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 States, the 
District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires 
States to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze 
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among States, tribal governments and 
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, States need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, the EPA has 
encouraged the States and tribes across the United States to address 
visibility impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional 
planning organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze 
and related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to 
better understand how their States and tribes impact Class I areas 
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional 
strategies to reduce emissions of PM and other pollutants leading to 
regional haze.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations 
require States to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) \5\ as the principal metric 
or unit for expressing visibility. Visibility expressed in deciviews is 
determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light 
extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a 
logarithm function. The dv is a more useful measure for tracking 
progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because 
each dv change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived 
by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
dv.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A deciview is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as ``a haze index 
derived from calculated light extinction, such that uniform changes 
in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception 
across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to highly 
impaired.''
    \6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dv is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim visibility 
goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline, 
current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. 
The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure ``reasonable 
progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and remedying 
visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air 
pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze. 
The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., 
anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair 
visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, States must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically 
review progress every five years midway through each ten-year 
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires States to determine 
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired 
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of 
their Class I areas. In addition, States must also develop an estimate 
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to States regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in 
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each 
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 
2004, States are required to calculate the average degree of visibility 
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values 
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline 
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the 
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the 
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions 
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004 
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in 
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the States that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, 
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I 
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR 
does not mandate specific milestones or rates

[[Page 11977]]

of progress, but instead calls for States to establish goals that 
provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., 
``background'') visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, States must 
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days 
over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same 
period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in the EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, 
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, to the EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-
2, 5-1). In setting the RPGs, States must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') 
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of 
progress over the ten-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress which States are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each State 
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I State'') must also consult 
with potentially ``contributing States,'' i.e., other nearby States 
with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at 
the Class I State's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs States to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires States 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the State. 
Under the RHR, States are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, States also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
States in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts, a State must use the approach set forth in 
the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but not required, to follow 
the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of 
sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
PM. EPA has stated that States should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH<INF>3</INF> compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The State must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any 
exemption threshold set by the State should not be higher than 0.5 dv.
    In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA's approval of the regional 
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition 
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that 
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the 
source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows States to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 
revising the regional haze program, the EPA made just such a 
demonstration for CAIR. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations 
provide that States participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program 
under 40 CFR Part 96 pursuant to the EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which 
remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR 
Part 97 need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, 
operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF>. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not address 
direct emissions of PM, States were still required to conduct a BART 
analysis for PM

[[Page 11978]]

emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant.
    Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted in the remand of the rule to 
EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). EPA 
issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport of 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> in the eastern United States. See 76 
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the Transport Rule,'' also known as the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 
find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve 
greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART 
in the States in which the Transport Rule applies. 76 FR 82219. Based 
on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to allow 
States to substitute participation in the trading programs under the 
Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not taken final action 
on that rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit issued an order 
addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in response to 
motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule 
pending judicial review. In that order, the DC Circuit stayed the 
Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the petitions for 
review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 
and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected 
to continue to administer the CAIR in the interim until the court rules 
on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
States include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that States include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a State will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected 
by emissions from, the State. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a State's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another State, the RHR requires the impacted State to coordinate with 
the contributing States in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing State must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, 
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between States may be required to sufficiently address 
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two States 
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, States must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment Long-Term Strategy

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c), regarding the LTS 
for RAVI, to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years 
until the date of submission of the State's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) 
and (c). The State must revise its plan to provide for review and 
revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze on 
or before this date. The State must also submit the first such 
coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated 
LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress toward RPGs, 
must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and 
periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), 
respectively. The periodic review of a State's LTS must be submitted to 
EPA as a SIP revision and report on both regional haze and RAVI 
impairment.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) includes the requirement for a monitoring 
strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze 
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I 
Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be coordinated with 
the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance 
with this requirement may be met through ``participation'' in the 
IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data from the 
network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze 
SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy 
must also provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE 
network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
    <bullet> Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a State with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State;
    <bullet> Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a State with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States;
    <bullet> Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the State, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
    <bullet> Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A State must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
    <bullet> Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 
ten years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The

[[Page 11979]]

requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that States consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least sixty days prior 
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must 
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of 
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development 
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. 
Further, a State must include in its SIP a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and 
FLMs regarding the State's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State of Iowa's submittal?

    EPA believes that the State has met the requirements of the CAA 
sections 110(l) and 110(a)(2) which require that the State adopt a SIP 
after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA also believes that the 
State has met the requirements of the specific procedural requirements 
for SIP revisions promulgated at 40 CFR Part 51, subpart F. These 
requirements include publication of notices by prominent advertisement 
in the relevant geographic area of a public hearing on proposed 
revisions, at least a 30-day public comment period, and the opportunity 
for a public hearing, and that the State, in accordance with its laws, 
submit the revision to EPA for approval. Specific information on Iowa's 
rulemaking, regional haze SIP development and the public information 
process is included in Chapter 2, and Appendix 2.1, of the State of 
Iowa's regional haze SIP, which is included in the docket of this 
proposed rulemaking.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    There are no Class I areas hosted by the State of Iowa, and no 
portion of land within the State of Iowa is within 300 kilometers (km) 
of a Class I area. However, States without Class I areas are still 
required to submit SIPs that address the apportionment of visibility 
impact from the emissions generated by sources within the State's 
borders at Class I areas hosted by other States.
    The State of Iowa participated in the planning efforts of the 
CENRAP which is affiliated with the Central States Air Resource 
Agencies (CENSARA). This RPO includes nine States--Nebraska, Iowa, 
Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. 
CENRAP and its contractors provided air quality modeling to the States 
to help them determine whether sources located within the State can be 
reasonably expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in 
a Class I area. The modeling conducted relied on baseline year (2002) 
and future planning year (2018) emissions inventories that were 
prepared with participation from each of the CENRAP States.
    The State of Iowa relied upon the regional modeling work performed 
by CENRAP for determining the impact that sources within the State 
might have on Class I areas in the region and beyond. The modeling was 
based on PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) for the 
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) photochemical 
model. A detailed description of the source apportionment methods 
utilized by CENRAP is available in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP.
    The following Class I areas were evaluated for contribution by the 
State of Iowa:
    <bullet> Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota (BOWA).
    <bullet> Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota (VOYA).
    <bullet> Seney Wilderness Area, Michigan (SENE).
    <bullet> Isle Royale National Park, Michigan (ISLE).
    <bullet> Hercules Glades Wilderness Area, Missouri (HEGL).
    <bullet> Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri (MING).
    <bullet> Caney Creek Wilderness, Arkansas (CACR).
    <bullet> Upper Buffalo Wilderness, Arkansas (UPBU).
    <bullet> Badlands National Park, South Dakota (BADL).
    <bullet> Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota (WICA).
    BOWA, VOYA, SENE and ISLE are known as the Northern Midwest Class I 
areas. According to the CENRAP PSAT results, the combined effect of all 
Iowa emissions upon the total modeled visibility impairment at the four 
Northern Midwest Class I areas is approximately 4 to 5 percent in both 
2002 and 2018. The data were calculated in accordance with the new 
IMPROVE equation and are representative of those days with the worst 20 
percent visibility conditions.

  Table 1--Percent Contribution of Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan to Visibility Impairment at the Northern Midwest Class I Areas, 20 Percent Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Iowa                          Minnesota                       Michigan
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2002            2018            2002            2018            2002            2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Waters.........................................             3.7             3.9            25.6            28.5             2.3             2.7
Voyagers................................................             3.8             4.0            29.1            30.4             1.4             1.6
Isle Royale.............................................             4.5             4.9            11.5            12.5            11.1            12.8
Seney...................................................             4.2             4.8             3.9             4.4             9.6            12.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PSAT results provided above are in terms of percentages of 
total visibility impairment. The State of Iowa found them useful for 
determining the proportion of the State's contribution in relation to 
the total modeled visibility impairment at a Class I area. However, 
characterizing visibility impairment using just percentages can fail to 
identify the magnitude of the contribution. For example, Iowa's percent 
contributions increase between 2002 and 2018, but the actual light 
extinction values decrease between the same years.

[[Page 11980]]



         Table 2--Iowa's Absolute Contribution to Visibility Impairment, Northern Midwest Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Worst 20 percent days modeled extinction (Mm-1)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Iowa                     Class I area total
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2002            2018            2002            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Waters.................................            2.39            2.08           64.87           53.44
Voyagers........................................            2.60            1.97           56.45           48.84
Isle Royale.....................................            3.23            3.02           71.40           61.26
Seney...........................................            4.54            3.95          107.92           82.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Iowa's contributions to visibility impairment, as calculated 
through light extinction using the new IMPROVE equation, are provided 
in Table 2. The total modeled visibility impairment for each Class I 
area are also shown in the table. Iowa emissions sources cumulatively 
contribute only 2.2-4.5 Mm-1 of the 56-107 Mm-1 total modeled 
visibility impairment at the Northern Midwest Class I areas in 2002. In 
tandem, Iowa's percentage and absolute contributions describe the 
impacts emissions sources in Iowa may have upon nearby Class I areas.
    Another way to assess Iowa's contribution to visibility impairment 
is to use the dv metric. As shown by Table 3, modeling results show 
that visibility improvements resulting from the elimination of all Iowa 
sources yield impacts below 0.5 dv.

       Table 3--Estimated 2018 Level of Visibility Impairment in the Absence of All Iowa Emissions Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            2018 Worst 20%
                                                        2018 Worst 20%        less Iowa's      Iowa's visibility
                                                             (dv)          contribution (dv)    & impacts (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Waters.....................................                18.5                18.1                 0.4
Voyagers............................................                17.7                17.4                 0.3
Isle Royale.........................................                19.6                19.2                 0.4
Seney...............................................                22.2                21.8                 0.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State determined that when considered collectively, the data in 
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show that Iowa sources were responsible for a 
minimal contribution to visibility impairment at the Northern Midwest 
Class I areas.
    Iowa's contributions to the Arkansas and Missouri Class I areas 
(HEGL, UPBU, CACR, MING) in terms of percentage contribution to 
visibility extension were less than to the Northern Midwest Class I 
areas. PSAT analysis showed that Iowa sources contributed approximately 
1.6-2.7 percent to the total visibility extinction on the 20 percent 
worst visibility days in 2018 at these Class I areas.
    PSAT analysis showed that Iowa sources contributed approximately 
1.6 percent to the total visibility extinction on the 20 percent worst 
visibility days in 2018 at the BADL and approximately 1.2 percent to 
the total visibility extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days 
in 2018 at the Wind Cave National Park, an impact which Iowa determined 
to be insignificant.
    EPA believes the State of Iowa adequately identified the Class I 
areas impacted by emissions from Iowa sources and the State adequately 
determined the apportionment of those pollutants from sources located 
within the State.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

    States that host Class I areas are required to estimate the 
baseline, natural and current visibility conditions of those Class I 
areas. As Iowa does not host a Class I area, it is not required to 
estimate these metrics.

C. Reasonable Progress Goals

    States hosting Class I areas have established RPGs, and have made 
assessments regarding whether emission reductions are needed from 
sources in Iowa in order to meet their RPG. This consultation is 
described in Section IV. E of this rulemaking. EPA is proposing to 
determine that the State has met the requirement of 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(iii) of the RHR.

D. Long-Term Strategy

    As discussed in greater detail in section IV. I. of this proposed 
rulemaking, the emissions inventory used in the State's regional haze 
technical analyses was developed by CENRAP. The 2018 emissions 
inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and applying 
reductions expected from Federal and State regulations affecting the 
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. The emissions inventory 
for Iowa projects changes to point, area and mobile source inventories 
by the end of the first implementation period resulting from population 
growth, industrial, energy and natural resources development, land 
management, and air pollution control.
    There are many Federal and State control programs being implemented 
that the State of Iowa anticipates will reduce emissions between the 
end of the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these 
control programs are included in the modeling analysis and are 
projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement by 2018 in the 
CENRAP and MRPO Class I areas. Iowa considered the minor and major new 
source review programs (NSR), nonattainment new source review programs 
(NNSR), prevention of significant deterioration permits (PSD), CAIR, 
the heavy duty highway diesel rule, the clean air non-road diesel rule, 
other on-road and non-road mobile source programs, operating permits, 
pertinent new source performance standards (NSPS), national emissions 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), associated maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards, and Integrated Planning 
Model (IPM) \8\ results in developing its long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/index.html.

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

[[Page 11981]]

    In a separate notice proposing limited disapproval of the regional 
haze SIPs of a number of States, including Iowa, EPA noted that these 
States relied on the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART 
requirement and the requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the 
State-adopted reasonable progress goals. (76 FR 82219, December 30, 
2011). In that notice, we proposed a limited disapproval of Iowa's LTS 
insofar as it relied on CAIR. For that reason, we are not taking action 
on that aspect of the long-term strategy in this notice. Comments on 
that proposed determination may be directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0729.
    In order to mitigate the impact of construction activities, the 
State of Iowa's rule on fugitive dust (567 IAC 23.3(2)``c'') states 
that reasonable precautions shall be taken to prevent the discharge of 
visible emissions of airborne dust beyond the lot line of the property 
from which the emissions originated. The State also requires minor NSR 
permits for aggregate processing plants, concrete batch plants, and 
asphalt plants. Portable aggregate, concrete, or asphalt plants must 
notify the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) thirty days 
before transferring the equipment to a new location to allow for review 
of the emissions impacts on national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS). The IDNR would notify the portable plant if there are 
potential adverse impacts on the NAAQS. A more stringent emission 
standard and the installation of additional control equipment would be 
required if the relocation would prevent the attainment or maintenance 
of the NAAQS. Iowa determined that no additional measures were needed 
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities for purposes of 
visibility improvement, and EPA agrees with this determination.
    Iowa demonstrated that source retirement and replacement schedules 
were taken into account, to the extent possible, when developing inputs 
for the IPM that was used in the CENRAP modeling analysis.
    Iowa does not have a smoke management program at this time. Iowa 
notes that the CENRAP PSAT modeling indicates that fires in Iowa do not 
significantly contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas, and 
therefore believes that a smoke management program is not needed for 
purposes of visibility improvement at this time.
    The State has determined, and the EPA agrees, that the 
implementation of the on the books and on the way controls mentioned 
above are the control measures necessary for the State to achieve its 
apportionment of emission reductions agreed upon through the 
consultation process (discussed in greater detail below and in Section 
IV.E of this proposed rulemaking) as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii).

E. Consultation With Other States

    Iowa participated with the central consultation group, a subset of 
the CENRAP. This group was coordinated by the States of Missouri and 
Arkansas. Other participants include Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, FLMs, other RPOs, and tribes. In addition 
to participation in the CENRAP regional planning process, the SIP 
indicates that Iowa also participated in the Midwest Class I area 
consultation group, coordinated by the States of Minnesota and 
Michigan, which included participation from the States of Illinois, 
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, as well as Tribal lands in the 
five States that are part of the Midwest Planning Organization (MRPO).
    In a letter dated July 23, 2007,\9\ the central consultation group 
determined that additional reductions beyond existing and proposed 
controls, through both State and Federal requirements, would not be 
necessary from the State of Iowa in order for the uniform rate of 
progress to be met at each of the Class I areas in the States of 
Missouri and Arkansas (HEGL, MING, CACR, and the UPBU). EPA believes 
that this satisfies the requirement for consultation between these 
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ State consultation letters are provided in Appendix 10 of 
the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Iowa communicated directly with the State of South Dakota, via 
letters dated May 31, 2007, and June 18, 2007, regarding visibility 
impacts at Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks. The State of South 
Dakota asked the State of Iowa for any analysis that it conducted to 
determine impacts, if any, sources in Iowa may have on the South Dakota 
Class I areas. The State of Iowa responded that source PSAT analysis 
was available on the CENRAP Web site titled ``PSAT Viz Tool 27-April 
2007.'' Iowa explained the analysis showed that sources in the State of 
Iowa contributed approximately 1.6 percent to the total visibility 
extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days in 2018 at Badlands 
and approximately 1.2 percent to the total visibility extinction on the 
20 percent worst visibility days in 2018 at Wind Cave, which Iowa 
considered to be an insignificant contribution. The State of Iowa did 
not receive a response or request for additional information from the 
State of South Dakota. EPA believes that this satisfies the requirement 
for consultation between these two States.
    The State of Iowa also communicated directly with the State of 
Oklahoma regarding potential visibility impacts of Iowa sources on the 
Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. In a letter dated February 25, 2008, 
the State of Oklahoma invited States that had a projected contribution 
of at least 1 Mm-1 in 2018 visibility impact at Wichita Mountains to 
participate in its consultation process. The letter goes on to 
determine that, after evaluation, in the 2018 modeling projections for 
the 20 percent worst visibility days at Wichita Mountains, 
anthropogenic emissions from the sources in the State of Iowa were not 
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at 
Wichita Mountains and that the State of Oklahoma was not requesting 
that the State of Iowa consider additional emission reductions. EPA 
believes that this satisfies the requirement for consultation between 
these two States.
    In a letter dated September 19, 2007, the State of Minnesota 
determined that the State of Iowa (among other States), was a 
significant contributor to visibility impairment at Voyageurs National 
Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Attachments provided 
with the letter indicated that the State of Minnesota utilized Lake 
Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) trajectory analysis and 
CENRAP PSAT analysis (for baseline years) to determine if a State 
contributed 5 percent or more to visibility impairment at the two 
Minnesota Class I areas. A contribution of 5 percent was considered by 
the State of Minnesota to be significant. The LADCO trajectory analysis 
estimated contributions from emissions from the State of Iowa to be 
approximately 7.4 percent at Boundary Waters and approximately 10.2 
percent at Voyageurs. The CENRAP PSAT modeling estimated contributions 
from emissions from the State of Iowa to be approximately 3.5 percent 
at Boundary Waters and approximately 3.8 percent at Voyageurs.
    In its letter, the State of Minnesota asked the State of Iowa to: 
``* * * evaluate further reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> from electric 
generating units (EGU) in order to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 
2018 to a rate that is more comparable to the emissions rate projected 
for 2018 for EGU sources in Minnesota, approximately 0.25 lbs/MMBtu.'' 
The State of Minnesota also asked the State of Iowa to make a 
commitment to

[[Page 11982]]

review, by 2013, the potential emission reductions that could be gained 
from control of industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) boilers 
and other point sources (such as reciprocating engines and turbines). 
The State of Iowa responded to the State of Minnesota in a letter dated 
November 1, 2007, communicating that it would not commit to evaluate 
further reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> from EGUs because the State was 
participating in the CAIR and because the State of Iowa had concerns 
with the State of Minnesota's interpretations of the LADCO/Minnesota 
four-factor analysis for reasonable progress. The State of Minnesota 
relied upon information from its four-factor analysis as an appendix to 
its request letter. The State of Iowa considered the State of 
Minnesota's cost per deciview improvement figures, in a range of 
approximately $3 billion/dv to $3.3 billion/dv, to be unreasonable for 
SO<INF>2</INF> control beyond CAIR for EGUs in the State of Iowa. The 
State of Iowa also considered the State of Minnesota's dollar per 
deciview figures, in a range of approximately $2.8 billion/dv to $3.4 
billion/dv, to be unreasonable for control of ICIs. The State explained 
that a similar argument could be made for reciprocating engines and 
combustion engines.
    The State of Iowa also questioned the State of Minnesota's use of 
the LADCO trajectory analysis to determine significance of emissions 
from surrounding States because the trajectory analysis was based upon 
theoretical air flow and did not account for chemical reactions in the 
atmosphere that is accounted for in the CENRAP PSAT modeling. Because 
the CENRAP PSAT modeling indicated that emissions from the State of 
Iowa contribute less than 5 percent to impairment at Minnesota Class I 
areas, the State of Iowa did not consider emissions from sources within 
its boundaries to be significant (considering the State of Minnesota's 
significance threshold of 5 percent).
    Iowa determined that additional controls were unsupported at this 
first stage of the regional haze rule, because Minnesota did not 
request that controls be installed on specific sources; did not provide 
justification on how such controls would lead to visibility improvement 
at the Minnesota Class I areas; did not provide documentation or 
otherwise consult with Iowa regarding any specific visibility 
improvement at the Minnesota Class I areas which would result from 
controlling Iowa sources; and because of the cost and visibility issues 
mentioned above. However on page 38 of the SIP, the State of Iowa does 
commit to continued consultation with Minnesota in the future on issues 
involving regional haze as requested and warranted. EPA believes that 
this satisfies the requirement for consultation between these two 
States.
    The State of Michigan wrote the State of Iowa a letter, dated 
October 26, 2007, stating that it was not asking other States to reduce 
emissions for purposes of meeting the requirements of the RHR. EPA 
believes that this satisfies the requirement for consultation between 
these two States.
    In summary, the State of Iowa consulted both directly and through 
the RPO process with the States on which Iowa sources may have an 
effect. EPA proposes to find that Iowa met the consultation 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and has addressed in its plan 
all measures necessary to obtain its share of emission reductions 
impacting visibility in Class I areas. 51.308(d)(3)(ii).

F. BART

    In the BART determination process, States must address all 
significant visibility impairing pollutants. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
PM. As indicated by the BART Guidelines, a State should use its best 
judgment in determining whether VOCs, ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) or 
ammonia compounds impair visibility in particular Class I areas.\10\ 
Iowa conducted a quantitative analysis of emissions inventory data to 
show that Iowa point source NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC emissions do not 
cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in any Class I area. 
This analysis is described in the TSD for this rulemaking, and EPA 
agrees with this conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Appendix Y of 40 CFR Part 51-States should exercise 
judgment in deciding whether the following pollutants impair 
visibility in an area: (4) Volatile organic compounds (VOC), and (5) 
Ammonia and ammonia compounds. A state should use its best judgment 
in deciding whether VOC or ammonia emissions from a source are 
likely to have an impact on visibility in an area. Certain types of 
VOC emissions, for example, are more likely to form secondary 
organic aerosols than others. Similarly, controlling ammonia 
emissions in some areas may not have a significant impact on 
visibility. A state need not provide a formal showing of an 
individual decision that a source of VOC or ammonia emissions is not 
subject to BART review. Because air quality modeling may not be 
feasible for individual sources of VOC or ammonia, a state should 
also exercise its judgment in assessing the degree of visibility 
impacts due to emissions of VOC and emissions of ammonia or ammonia 
compounds. A state should fully document the basis for judging that 
a VOC or ammonia source merits BART review, including its assessment 
of the source's contribution to visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. BART-Eligible Sources
    For an emission source to be identified as BART-eligible, the State 
used these criteria from the BART Guidelines: (1) One or more emissions 
units at the facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the 
BART Guidelines; (2) the emission unit was in existence on August 7, 
1977 and began operation at some point on or after August 7, 1962; and 
(3) the limited potential emissions from all emission units identified 
in the previous two items were 250 tons or more per year of any of 
these visibility-impairing pollutants: SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
or PM<INF>10</INF>.
    To identify the sources that met the criteria above, Iowa required 
sources to self identify as BART-eligible by rule (Iowa Administrative 
Code 567-22.9 Special Requirements for Visibility Protection) on a form 
supplied by the State. The State reviewed all in-house permitting, 
Title V databases, and the submitted forms to determine if a source met 
the criteria explained above. This process is outlined in detail in 
Appendix 9 of the SIP. The twenty seven BART-eligible facilities 
identified are listed in Table 4. EPA proposes to find that the State 
appropriately identified the BART-eligible units in the State.

                        Table 4--Facilities With BART-Eligible Units in the State of Iowa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Facility
             Source category                       Company name             No.          BART Emission units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuel-fired Steam Electric Plant     Cedar Falls Utilities......    07-02-005  Unit <greek-i>7 (EU10, 1A).
 Individually Greater than 250 MMBtu/hour.
                                           Central Iowa Power             88-01-004  Combustion turbines (EU1,
                                            Cooperative (CIPCO)--                     EU1G, EU2, EU2G).
                                            Summit Lake Station.
                                           Central Iowa Power             70-08-003  Unit <greek-i>2 (EU2 & EU
                                            Cooperative (CIPCO)--Fair                 2G).
                                            Station.
                                           City of Ames--Steam            85-01-006  Boiler <greek-i>7 (EU2).
                                            Electric Plant.
                                           Interstate Power and Light--   29-01-013  Main plant boiler.
                                            Burlington.

[[Page 11983]]

 
                                           Interstate Power and Light--   03-03-001  Boiler <greek-i>4 Sixteen
                                            Lansing.                                  units total.
                                           Interstate Power and Light--   23-01-014  Boiler <greek-i>2. Six
                                            ML Kapp.                                  units total.
                                           Interstate Power and Light--   57-01-042  Boiler <greek-i>4. Fourteen
                                            Prairie Creek.                            units total.
                                           MidAmerican Energy Company--   78-01-026  Boiler <greek-i>3 (EU003).
                                            Council Bluffs.
                                           MidAmerican Energy Company--   97-04-010  Boiler <greek-i>1-3 (EU001-
                                            Neal North.                               EU003).
                                           MidAmerican Energy Company--   97-04-011  Boiler <greek-i>4 (EU003).
                                            Neal South.
                                           Muscatine Power and Water..    70-01-011  Boiler <greek-i>8.
                                           Pella Municipal Power Plant    63-02-005  Boilers <greek-i>6-8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Process Plant...................  Equistar Chemicals.........    23-01-004  301 emission units.
                                           Koch Nitrogen Company......    94-01-005  Ammonia vapor flares and
                                                                                      primary reformer/auxiliary
                                                                                      boiler. 8 units total.
                                           Monsanto Company Muscatine.    70-01-008  Boilers <greek-i>5-7. 57
                                                                                      emission units total.
                                           Terra Nitrogen Port Neal       97-01-030  Boiler B & auxiliary
                                            Comp.                                     boiler.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Storage and Transfer Units with  BP--Bettendorf Terminal....    82-02-024  Truck loading.
 a Total Storage.
                                           BP--Des Moines Terminal....    77-01-158  Truck loading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland Cement Plant....................  Holcim (US) Inc............    17-01-009  109 emission units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuel-fired Boiler.................  ADM........................    23-01-006  <greek-i>7 & 8 boilers.
                                                                                      These boilers will
                                                                                      permanently shut down by 9/
                                                                                      13/08.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iron and Steel Mills.....................  Bloomfield Foundry, Inc....    26-01-001  18 emission units.
                                           Griffin Pipe Products Co...    78-01-012  10 emission units.
                                           John Deere Foundry Waterloo    07-01-010  37 emission units.
                                           Keokuk Steel Casings, A        56-01-025  67 emission units.
                                            Matrix Metals Company LLC.
                                           The Dexter Company.........    51-01-005  Tumblers 5 & 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Metal Production...............  Alcoa, Inc.................    82-01-002  Hot line mill. 87 emissions
                                                                                      units total.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. BART-Subject Sources
    Of the twenty seven BART-eligible facilities, thirteen are fossil-
fuel fired EGUs, and as such, are subject to CAIR for NO<INF>X</INF> 
and SO<INF>2</INF>. As noted in EPA's separate notice proposing 
revisions to the regional haze rule (76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011) a 
number of States, including Iowa, relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART 
requirements for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>, in accordance with 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Prior to the CAIR remand, the State's reliance on 
CAIR to satisfy BART for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> for affected 
CAIR EGUs was fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(4). As explained above, we are not proposing to take action 
in today's rulemaking on issues associated with Iowa's reliance on CAIR 
in its regional haze SIP, including BART for SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> for EGUs. In a separate action, EPA has previously 
proposed a limited disapproval of Iowa's regional haze SIP because of 
deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from 
the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
(DC Circuit) to EPA of CAIR. 76 FR 82219. Comments on that proposed 
determination may be directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. 
The PM BART evaluation for these sources is described in section V.F.2 
below.
1. Non-EGUs
    Iowa used three screening approaches to determine if the remaining 
fourteen non-EGU sources identified in table 4 were subject to BART:
    <bullet> Q/d (``Q'' being allowable emissions, in tons per year, 
and ``d'' representing the distance in km to the nearest Class I area, 
multiplied by a prescribed constant);\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The method, originally developed by the North Carolina 
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, is a tool to 
eliminate distant, insignificant emission sources from ambient 
assessments submitted under the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) program. The Q/d method determines a source to 
be insignificant if the allowable emissions in tons per year (Q) 
divided by a constant times the distance in kilometers (d) is 
greater than a value of 1. For example, North Carolina uses a 
constant of 20, which was determined empirically. Therefore, a 
source could be considered insignificant if its emissions divided by 
20 times its distance, in km, from the nearest Class I area is less 
than 1. For this application, for determining exemption from BART, 
the combined emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> of a BART-eligible unit could be divided by 20 
times the distance to the nearest Class I area. If that quotient is 
less than 1, the source would not be subject to BART. If a source is 
not found to be exempt under this approach, the CALPUFF screening 
analysis could still be used for an exemption determination. Page 
25196 of 69 FR 25183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> A variety of assessments using CAMx photochemical model (a 
regional scale model); and
    <bullet> An emissions inventory analysis.
    The RHR established thresholds defining the terms ``cause'' and 
``contribute''. A source is said to ``cause'' visibility impairment if 
its impact is equal to or greater than 1.0 dv at any Class I area. A 
source is said to ``contribute'' to visibility impairment if its 
impacts are equal to or greater than 0.5 dv at any Class I area. 
Although the RHR affords States the opportunity to adopt a more 
stringent deminimis threshold, the State of Iowa chose not to do so. 
However, for its three step BART-subject screening analyses, the State 
did utilize a threshold that considered the number of days a source's 
impact was equal to or greater than 0.5 dv. The State chose seven days 
for this threshold.\12\ The State's ``Variegated Protocol in Support of 
Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations--May 2006'' explains 
that if the State were to find no maximum delta-deciview (ddv) values 
greater than 0.5 dv from any of the three screening methods, it would 
provide a statewide exemption of the BART sources assessed in the given 
scenario. Should initial cumulative modeling quantify ddv impacts 
exceeding 0.5 dv, the State would refine its analyses. For each BART 
eligible source, information regarding Q/d analyses, CALPUFF model 
plant evaluation, and CAMx results were assembled and utilized in a 
weight-of-

[[Page 11984]]

evidence approach in the final subject-to-BART determination. If a unit 
was not clearly identifiable as either BART-subject or exempt from the 
BART determination process, the State provided a case-by-case 
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This is discussed on pages 3 and 11 of the State's 
``Variegated Protocol in Support of Best Available Retrofit 
Technology Determinations''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 lists each of the fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources 
analyzed for Q/d estimates, where ``Q'' is the sum of NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> emissions (PM<INF>2.5</INF> direct 
emission estimates were not available at the time of the calculations 
were performed by the State) and ``d'' is the distance between the 
source and the nearest Class I area in km. The Q/d estimates were 
completed using both actual and potential emissions and were multiplied 
by three different constants (20, 10, and 5). Iowa used a 1.0 threshold 
as its Q/d screening threshold. Note that potential emissions include 
only BART-eligible units while actual emissions represent facility wide 
totals, thus in certain cases actual emissions may exceed potentials.
    Based on the six Q/d calculations the State categorized each of the 
fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources into three categories: (1) Those 
sources that clearly exceed the 1.0 threshold, (2) sources well below 
the 1.0 threshold and 3) those sources with mixed results. Table 5 
shows that only ADM-Clinton and Holcim, Inc. clearly exceed the 1.0 
threshold in nearly each of the six Q/d calculations.

                                      Table 5--Nearest Class I Area & Q/d Values for Non-EGU BART-Eligible Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              BART Units potential emissions (tpy)             Facility wide actual emissions (tpy)
        Facility name             Nearest    Distance --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Class I      (km)       SO2       NOX    PM10    Q/20d   Q/10d   Q/5d     SO2     NOX    PM10    Q/20d   Q/10d   Q/5d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equistar Chemical............  MING........    531.2       3,883   3,433     258    0.71    1.43    2.85       1     728      52    0.07    0.15    0.29
Koch Nitrogen Company........  BOWA........    615.4          40   1,399      23    0.12    0.24    0.48       0     442      20    0.04    0.08    0.15
Monsanto-Muscatine...........  MING........    486.8         430     168      81    0.07    0.14    0.28     465     192       8    0.07    0.14    0.27
Terra Nitrogen-Port Neal.....  BADL........    487.6           1     916     325    0.13    0.25    0.51       1     461      33    0.05    0.10    0.20
BP-Bettendorf................  MING........    499.9           0       0       0    0.00    0.00    0.00       0       0       0    0.00    0.00    0.00
BP-Des Moines................  HEGL........    547.0           0       0       0    0.00    0.00    0.00       0       0       0    0.00    0.00    0.00
Holcim, Inc..................  BOWA........    527.0      28,715   4,738   1,000    3.27    6.54   13.07   3,826   2,813     190    0.65    1.30    2.59
ADM-Clinton..................  MING........    531.9       6,051   2,117     507    0.82    1.63    3.26   6,479   5,003   1,272    1.20    2.40    4.80
Bloomfield Foundry, Inc......  HEGL........    448.8         136      68     605    0.09    0.18    0.36       1       0      22    0.00    0.01    0.01
Griffin Pipe Products........  HEGL........    563.6         190     235     211    0.06    0.11    0.23       2      88     111    0.02    0.04    0.07
John Deere Foundry-Waterloo..  BOWA........    588.8           0       0     285    0.02    0.05    0.10       9      21      99    0.01    0.02    0.04
Keokuk Steel Casing..........  MING........    392.0          11      72     554    0.08    0.16    0.32       4       9      67    0.01    0.02    0.04
The Dexter Company...........  MING........    468.9           0       0     541    0.06    0.12    0.23      29       3     112    0.02    0.03    0.06
Alcoa, Inc...................  MING........    501.8          15     400   1,092    0.15    0.30    0.60       2     137     209    0.03    0.07    0.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A majority of the non-EGU facilities were well below the 1.0 
screening threshold in all six Q/d tests. Eleven facilities, listed in 
table 6, yield Q/d values well below 1.0 at even the most stringent 
potential to emit Q/5d evaluation. The State subsequently determined 
that these sources were unlikely to be subject to BART. Iowa indicates, 
on page 13 of Appendix 9 to the SIP, that this conclusion is further 
supported through evaluation of the Q/d values using facility-wide 
actual emissions. The actual emission Q/5d values average 0.09, with 
the upper limit at Monsanto Company-Muscatine of only 0.27. The State 
determined that these low values suggested any emission reductions 
would be insignificant at the nearest Class I area to the source.

  Table 6--Non-EGU BART-Eligible Facilities Significantly Below All Q/d
                             Screening Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koch Nitrogen Company
Monsanto- Muscatine
Terra Nitrogen-Port Neal
BP-Bettendorf
BP-Des Moines
Bloomfield Foundry, Inc.
Griffin Pipe Products
John Deere Foundry-Waterloo
Keokuk Steel Casing
The Dexter Company
Alcoa, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Equistar Chemical is the only facility listed in Table 5 above 
where the results are not clear cut. Considering potential emissions, 
the Q/20d value is 0.71 with Q/10d and Q/5d exceeding 1.0. Actual 
emissions reveal that the most conservative value, Q/5d, remains well 
below 1.0 at 0.29. Equistar Chemical reported facility wide 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in 2002 at one tpy, with NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions of 728 tpy. As shown in Table 5, the nearest Class I area 
receptor is located at Mingo, at a distance of approximately 531 km. 
The transport distance in combination with low actual emissions 
produced the low Q/d value for Equistar Chemical. Under these 
circumstances, Equistar Chemical is unlikely to be subject to BART. 
However, the State considered results from additional analyses, 
described below, before making any BART exemptions based solely on Q/d 
calculations.
    The BART guidelines indicate that when determining if a source is 
BART-subject, CALPUFF, or other appropriate models, can be used to 
determine if an individual source is anticipated to cause or contribute 
to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.\13\ The State explains in 
Appendix 9 to the SIP, and in its Variegated Protocol, that because 
each BART-eligible unit located within the State was an average of 516 
km (with a minimum of 392 km) away from the nearest Class I area, it 
experienced difficulties using the CALPUFF model to determine if a unit 
was BART-subject, due to the tendency of CALPUFF to over-predict single 
source contributions. The State did use CALPUFF as the modeling tool 
for its model plant approach described below, in the TSD for this 
rulemaking, and in section 5.2 of Appendix 9 to the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species non-steady-state 
puff dispersion model that simulates the effects of time- and space-
varying meteorological conditions on pollution transport, 
transformation and removal. CALPUFF can be applied on scales of tens 
to hundreds of kilometers. It includes algorithms for subgrid scale 
effects (such as terrain impingement), as well as longer range 
effects (such as pollutant removal due to wet scavenging and dry 
deposition, chemical transformation, and visibility effects of 
particulate matter concentrations). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the model plant analysis, the State utilized combined 
(SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>) emission rates of 5,000 tpy and 
3,000 tpy per source because of the distance from the sources to the 
Class I areas. The State chose to use the following Class I areas based 
on their distance from Iowa sources: BADL, BOWA, VOYA, MING, HEGL, ISLE 
and SENE. Natural background concentrations were extracted from the 
EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the 
Regional Haze Program.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf.

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

[[Page 11985]]

    During the State's analyses, each model plant simulation required 
fourteen iterations: Two natural background scenarios across seven 
Class I areas. Results for each Class I area assessment were tabulated 
and ranked individually. Both maximum and 98th percentile values were 
considered when determining the levels at which emissions may cause (dv 
impacts greater than or equal to 1.0) or contribute (dv impacts greater 
than or equal to 0.5) to visibility impairment.
    The results of the analysis (given on page 28 and 29 of Appendix 9 
to the SIP) showed that the model plant, with 5,000 tpy of 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> combined (and 50 tpy of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>) did not yield any dv impacts greater than 0.5 dv at 
the 98th percentile as compared against annually averaged natural 
background conditions. In the years 2002 and 2003, a maximum of five 
days exceed the 0.5 dv impact threshold, occurring at the BADL, likely 
due to utilization of the cleaner Western natural background 
conditions.\15\ During 2004, six days exceed the 0.5 dv impact 
threshold. The remaining six Class I area evaluations yield counts less 
than or equal to five days with impacts greater than 0.5 dv. 
Considering individual daily maximum impacts, 2002 values remain near 
the 0.5 dv level; slightly higher maximum impacts occur in 2003. In 
2004 maximum impacts were consistently above 1.0 dv. When compared 
against the 20 percent best natural background conditions, each year, 
for each site, had more than seven days with maximum impacts exceeding 
0.5 dv. As expected, maximum individual daily impacts show a 
corresponding increase versus annually averaged natural background 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Annual average natural background concentrations are not 
strictly Class I area specific. Alternatively, sites are assigned 
one of two datasets: Eastern or Western. Of the seven Class I areas 
examined within the Iowa domain, all are considered Eastern sites 
with the exception of the Badlands. Page 23 of Appendix 9 to the 
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the model plant analysis with 3,000 tpy of 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> combined (and 50 tpy of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>) showed that the 98th percentile is never exceeded, 
regardless of the natural background scenario. Additionally, at 3,000 
tpy of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions combined, maximum 
impacts for the years 2002 and 2003, as compared against annually 
averaged natural background conditions, do not exceed 0.5 dv. The year 
2004 does produce impacts above 0.5 dv. Two days above 0.5 dv are 
modeled for the BADL, and one day above 0.5 dv are shown for the 
remaining Class I areas. The 20 percent best natural background 
conditions--maximum daily impacts remain below 0.5 dv for all but SENE 
in 2002. In 2003, impacts greater than 0.5 dv are found for each site, 
but occur on no more than two days. Again, emissions in 2004 result in 
the dv highest impacts, but the impacts do not exceed the 98th 
percentile.
    Based upon these results, the State concluded that any BART-
eligible source that emitted less than 3,000 tpy of combined 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> would likely be 
exempt from being BART-subject. At the 3,000 tpy level, evaluation 
against the stringent 20 percent best natural background conditions 
yields no more than five days with impacts exceeding 0.5 dv. Utilizing 
the emissions data (provided in table 5), the State determined that 
eleven of the fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources would remain well 
below the 3,000 tpy combined potential to emit. These happen to be the 
same facilities already identified in table 6 as being below the Q/d 
screening thresholds.
    As a final tool to help in the BART-subject screening process, the 
State utilized the CAMx regional modeling system to model cumulative 
impacts across all BART-eligible sources at Class I areas. As set forth 
in the BART guidelines, a State may consider exempting all its BART-
eligible sources from BART by conducting analyses that show that all of 
the emissions from BART-eligible sources in the State, taken together, 
are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute visibility 
impairment. To make such a showing, a State could use CALPUFF or 
another appropriate dispersion model to evaluate the impacts of 
individual sources on downwind Class I areas, aggregating those impacts 
to determine the collective contribution from all-BART eligible sources 
in the State. A State with a sufficiently large number of BART-eligible 
sources could also make such a showing using a photochemical grid 
model.\16\ EPA determined that the option of allowing a State to 
demonstrate that the full group of BART-eligible sources in the State 
does not contribute to visibility impairment would, by default, satisfy 
an individual source contribution assessment. As previously discussed, 
the State had concerns with the use of CALPUFF, so it elected to use 
the photochemical model CAMx to model cumulative impacts of all BART-
eligible sources across Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For regional haze applications, regional scale modeling 
typically involves use of a photochemical grid model that is capable 
of simulating aerosol chemistry, transport, and deposition of 
airborne pollutants, including particulate matter and ozone. 
Regional scale air quality models are generally applied for 
geographic scales ranging from a multistate to the continental 
scale. Because of the design and intended applications of grid 
models, they may not be appropriate for BART assessments, so States 
should consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office prior to 
carrying out any such modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the Q/d analysis, the State utilized a 0.5 dv impact as 
screening a threshold of the CAMx modeling results. For all cumulative 
CAMx modeling scenarios, the scenario design involved zeroing the 
actual point source emissions of BART-eligible sources on a facility-
wide basis. In zeroing BART-eligible facility emissions, emphasis was 
placed upon the elevated point source emissions. The BART-eligible 
source list included distinctions for CAIR versus non-CAIR units (in 
lieu of CAIR as BART). This analysis is described in detail in the TSD 
for this rulemaking and in appendix 9 of the SIP.
    In summary, considering a 12 km grid, emissions from non-EGU BART-
eligible sources and natural background conditions, the maximum impact 
modeled is 0.63 dv (BOWA) with a maximum of only two days above the 0.5 
dv threshold (ISLE). Under the 20 percent best natural background 
conditions, the maximum impact increases to 0.93 dv (BOWA), and the 
maximum frequency of impacts greater than 0.5 dv is five days (ISLE). 
Because there were impacts greater than the 0.5 dv threshold, the State 
could not provide a blanket exemption for all non-EGU BART-eligible 
sources considering just the results of the CAMx modeling. The State 
did not consider these analyses to be definitive so it considered 
actual emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from the sources 
evaluated in the modeling. Because eleven of the non-EGU BART-eligible 
sources (the same eleven as previously identified in table 6) comprise 
approximately 11 percent (2,547 tpy of SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> 
and PM) of the total of actual emissions (22,911 tpy of SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF> and PM) from all fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources, 
the State determined that these eleven sources were unlikely to play a 
significant role in the cumulative modeled visibility impacts.
    Although Iowa did not strictly follow the guidelines for exempting 
a source, specifically with respect to modeling a BART-eligible source 
using maximum actual emissions, in this case EPA has determined that 
Iowa's alternative analysis should result in an acceptable conclusion 
to exempt these eleven sources for the following reasons. First, the 
State's analysis used both actual emissions on a facility-wide basis 
and potential emissions for the BART-eligible units. When looking at 
the

[[Page 11986]]

actual emissions facility-wide, for many of the sources, it was clear 
that had the maximum actual emissions been modeled using CALPUFF, the 
results would indicate minimal visibility impacts. This was apparent 
when comparing the modeled plant analysis emission inputs with the 
actual emissions. In almost all cases the sum of the actual emissions 
of visibility impairing emissions were significantly less than those 
used in the model plant analysis. The same is also true when looking at 
the potential emissions for many of these sources. Given that most of 
these non-EGU units do not have continuous emission monitoring systems 
(CEMS) that can be used for an accurate calculation of actual maximum 
24-hour emission rate, using both the actual annual emissions facility-
wide and potential emissions for the BART-eligible units provides 
confidence that these sources can be excluded as BART sources. Second, 
the Q/d analysis Iowa used provided a good indication of those sources 
where additional analysis might be warranted. Although we have not 
specifically relied on the Q/d analysis for our approval of BART 
exemptions, we do believe it was informative and the use of Q/5d is 
fairly conservative for this type of an analysis. We believe that the 
State reasonably demonstrated that the eleven non-EGU BART-eligible 
sources (listed above in table 6) are not BART-subject. The remaining 
discussion of this section will focus on the three remaining non-EGU 
BART-eligible facilities that were not exempted: Equistar Chemical, 
Holcim, and ADM-Clinton.
    Equistar Chemical's potential and actual emissions are dominated by 
VOCs, and not SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> or PM. While potential 
emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> exceed the 5,000 tpy 
model plant threshold, the actual emissions are far below the 3,000 tpy 
threshold--729 tons per year of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 
combined. As such, the State determined that Equistar Chemical would 
not contribute impacts exceeding 0.5 dv, and was therefore not BART-
subject. EPA agrees with this determination.
    Both Holcim and ADM-Clinton fail the Q/d and CALPUFF model plant 
analyses. Almost all Q/d metrics exceed the 1.0 significance level, 
while SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions (potentials and 
actual emissions) exceed both the 3,000 and 5,000 tpy scenarios 
examined with the CALPUFF model plant application. The State decided to 
look at both ADM-Clinton and Holcim on a case-by-case basis.
    As mentioned previously, the State found the uncertainties of using 
the CALPUFF modeling system for determining single source visibility 
impacts from sources far removed from Class I areas very challenging. 
The State decided to use an alternative process, scaling the cumulative 
modeling impacts according to emission rates. The State utilized the 
maximum dv impacts from the most relevant CAMx modeling scenario, at 
the most stringent 20 percent best natural background conditions, a 
value of 0.93 dv to scale actual SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM 
emissions for both sources. The State zeroed out the actual 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM emissions in the following 
scenario. Because Holcim's SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM 
emissions account for 6,828 tpy of the 22,911 tpy total non-EGU BART-
eligible sources' SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM emissions, 
Holcim's proportional share would account for 30 percent of the 
emissions. If ADM-Clinton's SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM 
emissions account for 12,755 tpy of the 22,911 tpy total non-EGU BART-
eligible sources' SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM emissions, ADM-
Clinton would account for 56 percent of the emissions. The State then 
scaled the visibility impact attributable to Holcim and ADM-Clinton. If 
the maximum visibility impact from all non-EGU BART-eligible sources 
was figured to be 0.93 dv, and Holcim was found to contribute 
approximately 30 percent to that impairment, it could be estimated that 
Holcim would contribute approximately 0.28 dv visibility impairment 
(below the 0.5 dv threshold). Using the same method, ADM-Clinton was 
found to contribute approximately 56 percent to the maximum visibility 
impairment, or approximately 0.52 dv, above the 0.5 dv threshold. The 
State found that this additional information supported a determination 
that Holcim did not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at any 
Class I area, and was not BART-subject, however, the same determination 
for ADM Clinton could not be made according to this analysis.
    As described previously, from the three screening approaches the 
State used, ADM-Clinton could not be ruled out from contributing to 
visibility impairment at Class I areas. However, at the time the State 
drafted the SIP, ADM-Clinton was going through a PSD permitting 
activity to construct new boilers. In the permit for the new boilers 
(Permit 05-A-314), ADM-Clinton was required to shut down boilers 1-14 
no later than 180 days after the startup of the new boilers.\17\ This 
includes the two BART-eligible boilers, numbers 7 and 8. We have 
confirmed with the State that these boilers have indeed shut down. In 
the PSD permit for the new boilers that replaced boilers 7 and 8, the 
facility was required to install and operate a baghouse, selective non-
catalytic reduction, and limestone injection flue gas desulfurization 
on the new boiler units (three coal burning and two natural gas; five 
in total). The construction permit limited the emissions of the 
replacement boiler units through an annual cap applicable across all 
five new units. SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are not to exceed 3,629 tpy 
and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not to exceed 1,445 tpy. These limits 
represent best available control technology (BACT) emission rates as 
required under the PSD program.\18\ Because the BART-eligible boilers 
were permanently shut down pursuant to an enforceable PSD permit, and 
the replacement boilers satisfy BACT, the State concluded that ADM-
Clinton was not subject to BART. EPA agrees with this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ https://aqbweb.iowadnr.gov/data/23/2301006/05A314P.pdf.
    \18\ The applicable State permit numbers are 05-A-313-P, 05-A-
314-P, 05-A-315-P for the coal-fired boilers, and 05-A-316-P, 05-A-
317-P for the natural gas fired boilers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes the State's approach to the photochemical modeling 
analysis does not fully account for the non-linear aspects of 
photochemical modeling and does not fully acknowledge that modeled 
impacts will not necessarily be directly proportional to the modeled 
emissions. However, EPA believes it is unlikely that Holcim will have 
visibility impacts on a Class I area greater than 0.5 dv for the 
following reasons. First, all modeled sources, including Holcim, are 
located a significant distance from any Class I area, with Holcim being 
527 km from the nearest Class I area. Second, the modeling inputs 
showed that emissions from Holcim constituted only 30 percent of total 
emissions from the modeled sources. Third, the maximum modeled impacts 
from this group of sources at any Class I area using average natural 
background conditions is 0.64 dv with at most 2 days of impacts over 
0.5 dv. Fourth, looking at all the maximum modeled impacts at all seven 
Class I areas shows an average maximum impact of 0.44 dv, indicating 
that no single source is likely the cause for the majority of impacts 
at any single Class I area. Finally, ADM-Clinton represents 56 percent 
of the visibility impairing emissions of the modeled sources and this 
source's BART eligible units have been permanently shut down, thus EPA 
anticipates impacts from the remaining group of sources would have less 
than a 0.5 dv impact. Based on these factors, EPA believes that State 
adequately demonstrated that Holcim does not cause or contribute to

[[Page 11987]]

visibility impairment in any Class I areas, and therefore is not 
subject to BART.
2. EGU BART Evaluation for PM
    As the State relied on CAIR to address NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, only an evaluation for PM was conducted for 
BART-eligible EGUs. There is no PM presumptive emission rate for EGUs 
with a capacity of 750 MW or greater. The State again relied on its 
CALPUFF model plant analysis for analyzing EGU PM emissions. Model year 
2004 was selected in order to generate maximum impacts (the State's 
analysis showed that 2004 data generated impacts that exceeded 2002 and 
2003 data). Two scenarios were completed using emission rates of 10,000 
and 5,000 tpy of PM, NO<INF>X</INF>, or SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. The 
model plant configuration was modified to reflect idealized EGU stack 
parameters, obtained from the EPA's CALPUFF analysis in support of the 
June 2005 changes to the RHR. Graphical results are given on page 46 of 
Appendix 9 to the SIP.
    No impacts above 0.5 dv were observed at any Class I area under 
annually averaged natural background conditions with PM emissions of 
10,000 tpy. Under the 20 percent best natural background conditions no 
impacts exceeding the 98th percentile occur. Reducing the emissions to 
5,000 tpy, no impacts above 0.5 dv were produced under annually 
averaged background conditions or 20 percent best natural background 
conditions. In terms of scale, Iowa's largest PM<INF>10</INF> source 
(an EGU that is not BART-eligible) emits 3,174 tpy (based on a 
facility-wide value), approximately 36.5 percent below the emission 
rate which yielded no visibility impacts. Based upon these results the 
State concluded, and the EPA agrees, that PM emissions from BART-
eligible EGUs in the State of Iowa would not cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment at any nearby Class I area, and are therefore not 
subject to BART for PM.

G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI)

    EPA's visibility regulations direct States to coordinate their RAVI 
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as 
explained in section III. F. of this action. Under EPA's RAVI 
regulations, the RAVI portion of a State SIP must address any integral 
vistas identified by FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral vista 
is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the 
mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama 
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.'' 
Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral 
vista associated with that area. Iowa has no Class I areas, and FLMs 
did not identify any integral vistas affected by Iowa sources. 
Therefore, the Iowa regional haze SIP submittal is not required to 
address the two requirements regarding coordination of the regional 
haze SIP with the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions.

H. Monitoring Strategy

    Because it does not host a Class I area, Iowa is not required to 
develop a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and 
reporting regional haze impairment that is representative of Class I 
areas within the State. However, Iowa is required to establish 
procedures by which monitoring data and other information is used to 
determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to 
regional haze impairment at Class I areas outside of the State.
    There are two IMPROVE monitoring protocol sites (sites that are not 
managed directly by IMPROVE, but by the operating agency) which are 
operated in the State. One is located at Lake Viking State Park in 
southwestern Iowa, and the second is located at Lake Sugema Wildlife 
Management Area in southeastern Iowa. The monitors began operation in 
June 2002. Descriptions of these monitoring sites and methods for data 
validation can be found in Chapter 6 of the State's Regional Haze SIP. 
The State has provided a commitment in Chapter 6 of the SIP to maintain 
the IMPROVE protocol monitoring sites contingent upon continued 
national funding.
    Data from IMPROVE protocol monitors is analyzed by a national 
laboratory (funded via an interagency agreement between the EPA and the 
National Park Service) and uploaded by the laboratory into two publicly 
available databases at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve and 
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/. Any supplemental monitoring 
data from additional monitoring equipment at each site is publicly 
available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs.
    EPA believes the State's commitments to utilize data from these 
sites, or any other EPA-approved monitoring network location, to 
characterize and model conditions within the State and to compare 
visibility conditions in the State to visibility impairment at Class I 
areas hosted by other States. EPA proposes that Iowa has satisfied the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).

I. Emissions Inventory

    Iowa was required to develop a statewide emissions inventory of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. This inventory must include 
baseline year emissions, emissions for the most recent year that data 
is available, and estimates of future year emissions. The State 
provided an inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area: VOCs, NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
PM<INF>10</INF>, and ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>). As required, the 
inventory includes emissions for a baseline year (2002), the most 
recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future year 
(2018) projected emissions along with a commitment to update the 
inventory periodically.
    The 2002 point source inventory was derived from the 2002 National 
Emission Inventory (NEI).\19\ All other source category emission 
inventories were developed by CENRAP and its contractors as part of the 
development of a baseline inventory for the 2002 modeling 
inventory.\20\ A summary of the 2002 baseline emissions inventory can 
be found in Chapter 7 of the SIP. Methodologies for the development of 
the 2002 emissions inventories can be found in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html.
    \20\ http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the 2018 future year emissions the State grew the 2002 
emissions using the Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) 5, MOBILE 6 
and NONROAD vehicle emissions software. The State also used the IPM to 
forecast EGU emissions.
    As shown in table 7, the State made a modification to the estimated 
2018 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for the point source EGU source category. 
In tables 7 and 8, the 2002 and 2018 point source EGU SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions are 135,833 and 160,733 tons per year (tpy), respectively. 
The State was concerned with the accuracy of the 2018 (160,733 tpy) 
value. CENRAP utilized the ``RPO version 2.1.9'' IPM (referred to as 
IPM v2.1.9) predictions to generate the 2018 BaseG scenario,\21\ in 
which total Iowa EGU SO<INF>2</INF> emissions were forecast to be 
approximately 147,305 tpy. During review of the

[[Page 11988]]

CENRAP BaseE2 modeling, errors were identified in the 2018 Iowa EGU 
emissions. Among the errors, certain EGU emissions were overestimated 
when a growth methodology was applied twice, once with EGAS and then 
again within IPM. Following error identification, corrections were 
submitted for inclusion in the BaseF (and subsequent BaseG) modeling 
scenarios. After the corrections, 2018 EGU SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
totaled 151,354 tpy. Thus, the State believed the value of 160,733 tpy 
provided through the emissions inventory report developed by a CENRAP 
contractor to be inaccurate.\22\ The State found that the corrected EGU 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions estimate of 151,354 tpy for 2018 is 
conservative, given updated results from IPM version 3.0 (discussed in 
Chapter 11 of the SIP) and Iowa's participation in CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The CENRAP modeling emissions inventory consists of several 
distinct datasets: the 2002 basecase for model performance 
evaluation, 2002 typical, 2018 basecase, and the 2018 control 
strategy scenario. The inventory was refined through several rounds 
of CENRAP workgroup review and revision, beginning with the initial 
BaseA version and culminating in the BaseG inventory.
    \22\ The ``Consolidation of Emissions Inventories''--Pechan 
Report No. 05.03.002/9500.003.

                                                          Table 7--2002 Iowa Emissions Summary
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia.................................................               0               0               0               0         258,915               0
Area....................................................         106,712           6,782          11,540          12,182           6.560           3,184
Area Fire...............................................           1,120             138           4,681           4,893               0             160
Fugitive Dust...........................................               0               0          38,666         193,331               0               0
Off road................................................          63,694          92,595           8,904           9,707              79           9,037
On road.................................................          87,392         120,621           1,747           2,373           3,064           3,200
Point EGU...............................................           1,075          81,761           4,527           9,424               0         135,833
Point Fire..............................................             545              33             594             700              48              35
Point NonEGU............................................          41,184          35,812           7,651           17495           3,317          51,836
Road dust...............................................               0               0          19,525         127,882               0               0
Wildfire................................................               5              29             218             224               0               8
Biogenic................................................         408,291          25,732  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         710,018         363,503          98,053         378,211         271,983         203,293
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                     Table 8--2018 Iowa Projected Emissions Summary
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia.................................................               0               0               0               0         302,012               0
Area....................................................         127,849           7,476          10,677          11,510          13,304           3,224
Area Fire...............................................           1,120             138           4,681           4,893               0             160
Fugitive Dust...........................................               0               0          40,608         203,044               0               0
Off road................................................          37,143          60,210           5,582           6,088             101             220
On road.................................................          36,404          33,975             708             708           4,225             400
Point EGU...............................................           1,802          65,629           9,578          11,232             713         151,354
Point Fire..............................................             547              33             596             702              49              36
Point NonEGU............................................          56,714          40,964          10,151          21,737           5,763          42,862
Road dust...............................................               0               0          17,712         114,889               0               0
Wildfire................................................               5              29             218             224               0               8
Biogenic................................................         408,291          25,732  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         669,875         234,186         100,511         375,027         326,167         198,264
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes that the 2002 and 2018 statewide emissions inventories 
and the State's method for developing the 2018 emissions inventory 
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) of the regional haze 
rule.

J. Reporting Requirements

    EPA has reviewed and believes the State's reporting strategy meets 
the requirements of the regional haze rule. The State is required to 
maintain reporting, record keeping and other measures necessary to 
assess and report on visibility improvements. In communications with 
the EPA, Iowa asserts that by complying with the Air Emissions 
Reporting Rule, in addition to the State's commitment (page 56, Chapter 
12 of the SIP) to complete the periodic review as required in 40 CFR 
51.308(g), for which the most recent or most appropriate emissions data 
will be used, such as CEMS data, it has met the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(4)(v) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) of the RHR. The EPA 
believes the State's methods of reporting and record keeping of 
emissions meet the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) of the RHR.

K. Consultation With Federal Land Managers

    The State of Iowa met the FLM consultation requirement by sending 
the draft SIP to the FLMs on November 26, 2007, and notifying the FLMs 
of the public hearing on January 30, 2008. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires 
States to provide a description of how they addressed any comments 
provided by the FLMs. Iowa has provided this in Appendix 2.1 of the 
SIP. EPA believes that Iowa adequately responded to the comments 
received from the FLMs and from EPA.

[[Page 11989]]

    Regional haze SIPs must also provide procedures for continuing 
consultation between the State and FLMs on the implementation of 40 CFR 
51.308, including development and review of SIP revisions and 5-year 
progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having 
the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I 
areas. The State of Iowa has committed to continuing to coordinate and 
consult with the FLMs during the development of future progress reports 
and plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of programs 
having the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in Class I 
areas.
    EPA proposes to find that the State of Iowa has satisfied the 
consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).

L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five Year Progress Reports

    Iowa acknowledged the requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(f) to submit 
periodic progress reports and regional haze SIP revisions, with the 
first report due by July 31, 2018, and revisions due every ten years 
thereafter. Iowa has committed to meeting this requirement.
    Iowa also acknowledged the requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to 
submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years 
following this initial SIP submittal. Iowa committed to submitting the 
required five year SIP revision, evaluating the progress made towards 
the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area which may be affected by 
emissions from Iowa sources. Iowa committed to addressing all the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 (g), including a review of the changes in 
the emission inventory, a review of the periodic reporting 
requirements, and a determination of whether additional action is 
needed according to 40 CFR 51.308(h).
    We propose to find that Iowa has satisfied the requirements to 
submit periodic SIP revisions and progress reports as required by 40 
CFR 51.308(f)-(h).

V. Proposed Actions

    We propose a limited approval of Iowa's March 25, 2008 SIP revision 
addressing regional haze. In a separate action, EPA has proposed a 
limited disapproval of the Iowa regional haze SIP because of 
deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from 
the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze 
requirements. 76 FR 82219. We are not proposing to take action in 
today's rulemaking on issues associated with Iowa's reliance on CAIR in 
its regional haze SIP.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 
approve all ``collections of information'' by the EPA. The Act defines 
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * * 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act 
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because 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 create any new 
requirements, this action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of 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. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 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 
the 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.
    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 proposes to 
approve pre-existing 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.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires the EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the

[[Page 11990]]

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely 
approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule 
does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 
13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
Karl Brooks,
Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2012-4684 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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