46742 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 117.287, revise paragraph (d)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 117.287 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) Pinellas Bayway Structure ‘‘E’’ (SR 

679) bridge, mile 113.0 at St. Petersburg 

Beach. The draw shall open on signal, 

except that from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. the 

draw need open only on the hour and 

30 minutes past the hour. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 24, 2014. 

J.H. Korn, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18868 Filed 8–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0550; FRL 9915–02– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; 

2014 Iowa State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant full 

approval of Iowa’s State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). Iowa completed the 

SIP revision in response to a SIP Call 

finalized by EPA on July 14, 2011, 

finding that the Iowa SIP was 

substantially inadequate to maintain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 

Muscatine County, Iowa. Iowa 

submitted its revised SIP to EPA on 

February 18, 2014. EPA believes that the 

SIP revision submitted by the state 

satisfies the applicable requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) identified in 

EPA’s SIP Call and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS and will keep the 

Muscatine area in attainment of the 35 

microgram/cubic meter (ug/m3)PM 2.5

NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2014–0550, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov. 

3. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014– 

0550. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket. All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Algoe-Eakin at (913) 551–7942, or 

email her at algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46743 

1A complete history of EPA’s rule making can be 

found at 76 FR 9706, and 76 FR 41424. A summary 

is also included in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) in the public docket for this 

action. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

II. Have the requirements for the 

approval of a SIP revision been 

met? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Background 

V. Technical Review of the Attainment 

Demonstration SIP 

A. Facility Descriptions 

B. Modeling and Emissions Inventory 

Data 

C. Control Strategy 

D. Contingency Measures 

E. Enforceability 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is proposing to grant full 

approval of Iowa’s SIP revision for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Iowa 

submitted this SIP revision in response 

to EPA’s Finding of Substantial 

Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; 

Call for Iowa State Implementation Plan 

Revision related to the 2006 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) in Muscatine County, Iowa. 

76 FR 41424 (July 14, 2011) (hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘SIP Call’’). Iowa’s SIP 

revision demonstrates continued 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

II. Have the requirements for the 

approval of a SIP revision been met? 

The state submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. In addition, the revision 

meets the substantive SIP requirements 

of the CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to grant full 

approval of Iowa’s SIP revision in 

response to EPA’s SIP Call to maintain 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are 

processing this as a proposed action 

because we are soliciting comments. 

Final rulemaking will occur after 

consideration of any comments. 

IV. Background 

EPA determined based on 2008–2010 

monitoring data from a monitor within 

the city limits of Muscatine, Iowa that 

the Iowa SIP was inadequate to 

maintain attainment with the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 76 FR 41424.1 EPA 

based the SIP call on its review of the 

monitoring data as well as the 

information from the violating monitor. 

All portions of Muscatine County are, 

and continue to be designated as 

attainment. 

EPA issued its SIP call under section 

110(k)(5) of the CAA and required Iowa 

to submit a SIP revision within 18 

months of the effective date of the SIP 

Call that included: (1) An emissions 

inventory of sources expected to 

contribute to the violating monitor; (2) 

a modeling demonstration showing the 

reductions needed to attain and 

maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS; (3) 

enforceable control measures necessary 

to attain and maintain the PM2.5

NAAQS; and (4) enforceable 

commitments to adopt and implement 

contingency measures if the area does 

not attain or violates the standard. The 

SIP Call required that Iowa’s SIP 

revision provide for attainment and 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in Muscatine County as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

Iowa submitted its SIP revision to 

EPA on February 18, 2014. 

V. Technical Review of the Attainment 

Demonstration SIP 

A. Facility Descriptions 

In order to meet the requirements of 

the SIP Call, Iowa developed a control 

strategy for Muscatine County. Iowa 

determined that there were three 

facilities that were significant 

contributors to modeled exceedances in 

the vicinity of the Garfield School 

monitor: Grain Processing Corporation 

(GPC), Muscatine Power & Water (MPW) 

and Union Tank Car (UTC). The largest 

source of PM2.5 near the Garfield School 

monitor is GPC. The modeling 

demonstration submitted by Iowa shows 

that GPC has actual PM2.5 emissions of 

537.6 tons/year. MPW and UTC have 

58.3 and 3.0 tons/year of PM2.5

emissions, respectively. 

GPC is located approximately 500 

meters east/southeast of the Garfield 

School monitor. GPC processes grain 

into industrial, beverage, and fuel-grade 

ethanol, grain based food products, 

industrial products, and animal feeds. 

GPC has nearly 200 PM2.5 emission 

points, including coal and gas-fired 

boilers, dryers, coolers and associated 

material handling and storage 

equipment. 

Union Tank Car (UTC) supplies and 

reconditions rail tank cars for use 

through rental agreements. The primary 

sources of PM2.5 from UTC are from the 

removal of paint from rail tank cars, 

repair of rail tank cars, and application 

of paint through a spray system on rail 

tank cars. UTC is not a major source of 

PM2.5, but is located near the Garfield 

School monitor. Iowa determined that 

UTC contributed to predicted violations 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, Iowa 

included UTC in the control strategy. 

Muscatine Power & Water (MPW) is a 

municipal electric generating station 

located approximately 1.6 kilometers 

south and east of the Garfield School 

monitor. The primary sources of PM2.5

at MPW include emissions from three 

coal-fired boilers, Units 7, 8, and 9, and 

emissions from the associated handling 

and storage equipment. 

B. Modeling and Emissions Inventory 

Data 

In the final SIP Call, EPA required the 

state to submit a modeled attainment 

demonstration which is consistent with 

appendix W to 40 CFR part 51. EPA 

required the modeling to show what 

reductions will be needed to attain and 

maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. 

The state adequately addressed this 

requirement in its SIP submittal. 

The SIP revision includes a detailed 

explanation of the modeling conducted. 

Included in the state’s plan is 

discussion of model selection and 

options including: The extent of the 

receptor grid, receptor grid spacing, 

terrain elevations, downwash, and 

meteorological data. The state also 

provides background as to the iterative 

analyses conducted as well as the 

detailed development of model inputs 

for emissions and meteorology. 

During the development of the plan 

and in previous technical modeling 

exercises regarding the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 designations, EPA provided 

technical expertise to the state regarding 

modeling activities. EPA Region 7 

reviewed and provided comment on the 

state’s modeling protocol during the 

development of the PM2.5 Muscatine 

SIP. (The modeling protocol is 

including in the state’s formal 

submission as attachment A.) 

In evaluating the SIP revision for 

consistency with appendix W to 40 CFR 

part 51, EPA Region 7 believes the state 

submission to be consistent with EPA’s 

modeling requirements. Because local 

point sources are considered to be the 

significant contributors to the monitor 

24-hour PM2.5 violations, the state’s 

modeling was conducted using 

AERMOD version 12345. Again, the 

model selection, modeling inputs, such 

as background concentrations and 

significant impact levels, and results of 

modeled attainment tests were subject 

to consultation with EPA Region 7 prior 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46744 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

to the formal completion of the control 

strategy selection. 

In the SIP Call, EPA stated that the 

state must include in the revised SIP an 

emissions inventory consistent with 40 

CFR 51.114. This regulatory provision 

provides for identification of emissions 

data and projections and each plan must 

contain a detailed inventory of 

emissions from point and area sources. 

Iowa has adequately addressed this 

requirement in the SIP revision. Iowa 

reviewed the average 2007 and 2008 

facility-wide actual emissions from the 

facilities shown to contribute 

significantly to violations of the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Building upon the 

technical analysis which occurred 

during the designations process for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and in 

reviewing inventory for the 

development of modeling, the state 

determined three sources significantly 

contributed to the Garfield School 

monitored violations. Because of the 

form of the standard (24-hour average), 

local sources were determined to be 

critical in terms of contributions to 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. The state, 

as noted in their SIP, did not identify 

any other potential emissions sources in 

the area of the violating monitor, such 

as area and mobile sources, as 

contributing significantly to the NAAQS 

violations. Background concentrations 

were added to modeled results to 

account for the regional transport of fine 

particulate matter and any unidentified 

local sources such as mobile and area 

sources not explicitly included in the 

model. 

C. Control Strategy 

Iowa determined that three sources: 

GPC, MPW, and UTC, contributed to 

modeled exceedances of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Iowa’s SIP includes a control 

strategy addressing each of these 

sources. Iowa’s control strategy for GPC 

is memorialized in Administrative 

Consent Order No. 2014–AQ–A1 (ACO), 

which is an administrative consent 

order between the Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources and GPC and is 

included as part of Iowa’s SIP revision 

as SIP attachment B. The ACO includes 

a schedule for implementing the control 

strategy, as well as recordkeeping, 

reporting and testing requirements. The 

provisions of the ACO will be 

incorporated into permits, which will 

then be submitted to EPA for approval 

into the state SIP. The ACO includes 

numerous and substantial changes at the 

GPC facility. The control measures 

include new particulate controls or 

improvements to existing particulate 

controls on a number of sources; 

shutdown of existing equipment; 

replacement of old equipment; 

installation of more efficient equipment; 

regular sweeping and watering of road 

surfaces; increase of stack heights; and 

operating restrictions on certain 

processes. As described in detail in 

attachment A to the ACO, GPC has 

already implemented the control 

strategy at many of its emission points. 

This includes operation restrictions, 

PM2.5 emission limits, shutdown of 

emission units, and stack height 

increases. However, there are several 

large-scale projects that will require 

substantial planning and construction 

by GPC. 

Due to the scale and complexity of the 

control strategy implementation at GPC, 

GPC has developed a phased 

implementation schedule that is already 

underway and concludes in December 

2016. Many of the changes at the GPC 

facility are contingent upon completion 

of a significant project related to a new 

dryer house (Dryer House #5 or DH 5) 

that is also required under a 2006 

Consent Order entered into between 

GPC and the State of Iowa to address 

PM10 emissions. The DH 5 project is 

included in Iowa’s SIP revision to 

address PM2.5 emissions. 

The SIP Call occurred at the same 

time GPC was designing the DH 5 

project to comply with the 2006 Consent 

Order. To demonstrate compliance with 

the PM2.5 SIP Call, GPC re-evaluated the 

DH 5 project and made adjustments to 

the design to accommodate the more 

stringent plant-wide changes required 

by the PM2.5 SIP Call. As a result of the 

changes to the project to accommodate 

the PM2.5 SIP Call control strategy, the 

design complexity, and construction 

logistics for the DH 5 project, GPC will 

complete the project on March 31, 2015. 

The control strategy includes several 

large scale projects that are tied to the 

installation and completion of the DH 5 

project. They are described in detail in 

the Technical Support Document for 

this action. 

The control strategy for GPC also 

includes several large scale projects that 

are complex in all aspects, including 

design and construction, and will 

require an extended schedule to 

complete. These projects include 

improvements to the dryer and scrubber 

performance at Gluten Plant Units 1 and 

2; and decommissioning of dryers and 

conversion of dryers to natural gas. 

These projects are all described in detail 

in the TSD for this action. 

The complexity of the design, 

fabrication, and construction of the 

projects at GPC supports the phased 

implementation schedule. Further, 

approval of the phased implementation 

schedule does not have a negative effect 

on air quality. The 24-hour PM2.5 design 

values have been steadily declining over 

the last three design value periods. The 

most recent three year design value 

(2011–2013) at the Garfield School 

monitor is 28 ug/m3. Design values at 

both the Franklin School and 

Greenwood Cemetery monitors have 

also declined. The 2010–2012 design 

value for these monitors is 32 ug/m3. 

The on-going implementation of 

controls pursuant to the control strategy 

will ensure that future design values 

stay below the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

and will eliminate the oscillation of the 

design values around the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Full implementation of the control 

measures at GPC will reduce PM2.5

emissions from GPC by an estimated 

367.9 tons/year. 

As part of the control strategy, Union 

Tank Car is installing new particulate 

controls on several emission points. It is 

also increasing stack heights at select 

locations and restricting operations of 

certain processes. Full implementation 

of control measures at UTC will reduce 

PM2.5 emissions from UTC by an 

estimated 0.3 tons per year. The UTC 

control measures are made enforceable 

through state-issued air construction 

permits, which were submitted by Iowa 

as part of its SIP revision and will 

become part of the SIP once EPA has 

granted full approval. All of the control 

measures at UTC have been 

implemented. 

As part of the control strategy, MPW 

will conduct regular watering of road 

surfaces; pave an unpaved road and 

water road surfaces; remove a lime silo 

and mixing tank, 3 diesel engines, and 

wet fly ash truck loading; and 

implement operational restrictions. 

MPW will also reduce the capacity of its 

limestone hopper loading and handling 

systems; install a roofed enclosure with 

three sides for the limestone hopper; 

and reduce the size of the coal pile, 

limestone pile and synthetic gypsum 

pile. MPW is also modifying its dust 

collection system for its coal reclaim 

and the coal crush feeders by 

reconfiguring the equipment and 

increasing the stack height. The MPW 

control measures are made enforceable 

through state-issued air construction 

permits, which were submitted by Iowa 

as part of its SIP revision and will 

become part of the SIP once EPA has 

granted full approval. All of the control 

measures at MPW have been 

implemented. The full implementation 

of the control strategy at MPW is 

expected to reduce PM2.5 emission from 

MPW by an estimated 0.7 tons per year. 

In our final rule (76 FR 41424), EPA 

stated that we would establish a specific 

date for attainment at the same time we 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46745 

2This information is included in the TSD and 

docket for this action. 

took final action on the state’s 

implementation plan revision in 

response to this final SIP Call. 76 FR at 

41426. At the time of the SIP Call, we 

expected the attainment date to be the 

first full calendar year following the 

implementation of controls. In this case, 

EPA expected the attainment date 

would be the first full calendar year 

following the required implementation 

of controls, i.e. 2014. 

However, based upon the information 

in Iowa’s SIP revision, our review of the 

supplemental information provided by 

GPC by email dated April 29, 2014,2 and 

the current air quality monitoring data 

for the Muscatine area, EPA is 

proposing to establish this attainment 

date as December 31, 2017. This 

proposed attainment date is consistent 

with EPA’s expectations established in 

the SIP Call, as it is the first full 

calendar year following implementation 

of controls. Due to the complexity of the 

control strategy, particularly the design, 

fabrication, and construction of the 

projects at GPC, and based on the 

current monitoring value, demonstrating 

continued attainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA believes that December 

31, 2017 is the date by which long term 

compliance with the NAAQS can be 

achieved as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

The proposed control strategy will 

also further the downward trend of 

PM2.5 emissions for the Muscatine area 

and provide co-benefits in reductions of 

other pollutants. Additional analysis 

can be found in the TSD for this action. 

D. Contingency Measures 

In the SIP Call, EPA stated that it was 

reasonable to expect that the 98th 

percentile value of 24-hour 

concentrations for the calendar year 

after the necessary controls were 

implemented should be at or below the 

24-hour PM2.5 standard (35 ug/m3). 76 

FR at 41426. EPA stated that 

contingency measures will be triggered 

if that value is above the 98th percentile 

value in the calendar year after the 

implementation of controls necessary 

for attainment or in any subsequent 

year. Id. EPA then stated that the SIP 

revision must contain an enforceable 

commitment to adopt and implement 

sufficient contingency measures, once 

triggered, in an expeditious and timely 

fashion that is comparable and 

analogous to the requirements for 

contingency measures in CAA section 

175A(d). Id. 

EPA determined that the reference to 

CAA section 175A(d) was warranted 

because EPA made the SIP call to ensure 

that the area attains and then continues 

to maintain the PM2.5 standard. 76 FR at 

41428. At the time of the SIP Call, Iowa 

did not comment on the proposed 

contingency measure trigger. Id. 

In Iowa’s SIP, Iowa included a phased 

approach to the contingency measure 

trigger. Iowa stated it will use a 

violation of the 2015–2017 (or any 

subsequent) PM2.5 design value 

measured from the Garfield School 

monitor to determine whether 

contingency measures should be 

implemented (first tier trigger). The 

contingency measures would then be 

implemented no later than 24 months as 

stated in the SIP Call. If a contingency 

measure is triggered, Iowa would then 

use the 98th percentile value for any 

subsequent calendar year following the 

implementation of contingency 

measures to determine the need for 

additional measures (second tier 

trigger). 

If the 98th percentile for any 

subsequent calendar year following the 

implementation of contingency measure 

is above 35 ug/m3 then additional 

contingency measures would be 

implemented as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 24 months 

after the second tier of contingency 

measures is triggered. Like the 

contingency measures implemented as a 

result of the design value trigger (first 

tier trigger), the additional contingency 

measures implemented as a result of the 

98th percentile trigger (second tier 

trigger) would continue indefinitely and 

become part of the permanent control 

strategy for the area. 

Iowa stated in its submission that it 

proposed this two tier approach because 

Iowa believed the SIP Call trigger (98th 

percentile in the calendar year following 

implementation of controls) did not 

adequately consider the potential role of 

regional (non-local) events. Iowa 

reviewed the statewide historical 98th 

percentile PM2.5 monitoring data for the 

past 10 years. Iowa’s review showed 

that if the SIP Call trigger was used, 

many communities in eastern Iowa that 

are not adjacent to direct sources of 

PM2.5 and that are not currently 

designated as non-attainment for the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, would have been 

designated non-attainment for the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS due to regional 

PM2.5 episodes. Iowa also found that the 

SIP Call trigger failed to account for the 

documented year-to-year variability of 

meteorological conditions. The annual 

variability of meteorological conditions 

is accounted for in the form of the 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard, which uses a threeyear average of 98th percentile values. 

EPA commented on this approach 

during the public comment period on 

Iowa’s proposed SIP revision. Iowa 

stated that the two tier trigger approach 

allows for the triggering of contingency 

measures on the same time schedule 

that would have been applicable with a 

trigger based only on the 98th percentile 

value for the calendar year after 

complete implementation of the control 

strategy. 

Section 175A(d) contingency 

measures are required as part of SIPs to 

assure that a state will promptly correct 

any violation of the standard which 

occurs after the redesignation of the area 

as an attainment area. The contingency 

measures shall include a requirement 

that the state will implement all 

measures with respect to the control for 

the air pollutant concerned which were 

contained in the SIP for the area before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

In the SIP Call, EPA stated that it did 

not intend to imply that section 175A(d) 

is literally applicable to the Muscatine 

area, but rather provided that IDNR 

follow 175A(d) as a guide for 

developing and implementing 

contingency measures. 76 FR at 41428. 

At the time of the SIP Call, EPA 

believed it was reasonable to expect the 

98th percentile would be the 

appropriate trigger for implementing 

contingency measures. 76 FR at 41426. 

After reviewing Iowa’s SIP revision and 

the associated contingency measures, 

EPA believes that the SIP revision meets 

the requirements of the SIP Call. 

Iowa has used Section 175A(d) as 

guidance in developing the contingency 

measures, as required by the SIP Call. 

The contingency measure trigger 

proposed by Iowa is also reasonable. 

The first contingency measure trigger 

using the design value to determine 

whether there is a violation is consistent 

with the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

second contingency measure trigger 

using the 98th percentile value is 

consistent with EPA’s SIP Call. Iowa 

will immediately implement the 

contingency measures as described 

below, upon reaching the first trigger. 

EPA has carefully reviewed the 

control strategy and the contingency 

measures proposed and agrees that the 

design value trigger for the contingency 

measures is reasonable, given the 

strength of the control strategy and the 

contingency measures proposed and the 

current design value data of 28 ug/m3. 

EPA is proposing to adopt Iowa’s two 

tier contingency measure approach. The 

two tier approach is protective of air 

quality and provides for a 

comprehensive approach to contingency 

measures. Therefore, EPA proposes to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46746 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3As stated in Iowa’s SIP submission letter of 

February 18, 2014, Iowa did not submit Section III, 

Paragraph 5, the last sentence, or Section VI to EPA 

for approval. Therefore, those provisions of the 

2014 ACO are not part of Iowa’s SIP and are not 

considered by EPA. 

approve Iowa’s two tier trigger for the 

contingency measures. 

As with all aspects of this proposal, 

EPA is taking comment on the approval 

of the two tier contingency measure 

trigger. 

In the event that the 2015–2107 24- 

hour PM2.5 design value exceeds the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS at the Garfield 

School monitor, Iowa will require the 

submission of an emissions control 

program from the appropriate sources in 

the area. Iowa will determine which 

sources are required to submit an 

emissions control program based on the 

circumstances that triggered the 

exceedance. Iowa developed some 

potential contingency measures that 

may provide additional reductions in 

the event of an exceedance. These 

include the following: Evaluate and 

install additional control equipment, as 

needed; evaluate and implement 

changes in stack parameters and stack 

configurations to improve dispersion of 

emissions; evaluate and implement 

additional operation and production 

restrictions; evaluate and implement 

process changes to reduce PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 formation; review operations and 

maintenance procedures to determine 

whether improvements can be made; reevaluate traffic flow patterns at facilities 

and vehicle miles traveled to determine 

whether idling time and congestion can 

be reduced; re-evaluate material 

produce unloading, handling, and 

loading procedures and patters to 

determine whether improvements can 

be made; re-evaluate facility best 

management practices associated with 

housekeeping including cleaning 

internal and external areas to minimize 

dust when the facility is receiving, 

transferring or loading out materials and 

product; consider planting vegetation in 

specific areas to control dust flow 

patterns and fugitive emissions; and 

identify and implement other 

improvements that may be necessary 

based on potential sources of particulate 

emissions. 

The contingency measures adoption 

and implementation schedule is as 

follows: 

CONTINGENCY MEASURES ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Activity Completion date 

(T=trigger date) 

(1) Evaluate circumstances of trigger; ID sources ......................................................................................................... T + 1 month. 

(2) Identify additional control measures ......................................................................................................................... T + 2 months. 

(3) Facility(s) submit emission control program ............................................................................................................. T + 4 months. 

(4) Issue order or permits ............................................................................................................................................... T + 6 months. 

(5) Facility(s) implement additional control measures .................................................................................................... Within T + 24 months. 

The emissions control plan for any 

facility required to submit a plan would 

include the necessary supporting 

technical information, emissions 

calculations, construction permit 

applications, and air quality evaluation 

to make the additional control measure 

enforceable through the issuance of an 

order or construction permits. This 

approach requires each affected facility 

to create and implement an emissions 

control plan with targeted control 

measures appropriate to the 

circumstances of the situation that 

triggered the contingency measures. 

E. Enforceability 

As specified in section 172(c)(6) and 

section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and 57 

FR 13556, all measures and other 

elements in the SIP must be enforceable 

by the state and EPA. The enforceable 

documents included in Iowa’s SIP 

revision that EPA is proposing to 

approve are the ACO3 (Administrative 

Consent Order No. 2014–AQ–A1) and 

the construction permits for MPW and 

UTC. The ACO contains all the control 

measures with enforceable dates for 

implementation. The construction 

permits for MPW and UTC contain all 

the necessary operational requirements 

for implementation. Further, the control 

strategy at MPW and UTC is in the 

process of being fully implemented. 

Upon EPA approval of the SIP 

revision, the ACO and the state permits 

will become state and Federally 

enforceable, and enforceable by citizens 

under section 304 of the CAA. The ACO 

specifically allows for the enforcement 

of the ACO if the terms and provisions 

are not met. EPA is not bound by the 

state’s enforcement or penalty actions 

and would enforce violations of this 

document under section 113 of the CAA 

or other Federal authorities. 

EPA proposed to approve Iowa’s SIP 

as meeting sections 172(c)(6) and 

110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 

13556. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to grant full 

approval of Iowa’s SIP revision to 

maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011).This action 

is also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46747 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

This action merely approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This rule also is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA when it reviews a state submission, 

to use VCS in place of a state 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This action does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 10, 2014. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the final 

rulemaking. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 1, 2014. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18952 Filed 8–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0142; FRL–9914–50– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Revision to the Maintenance Plans for 

the Richmond 1990 1-Hour and 

Richmond-Petersburg 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Areas To Remove 

the Stage II Vapor Recovery Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

(Commonwealth). The revision removes 

the Stage II vapor recovery program 

(Stage II) from the maintenance plans 

for the Richmond 1990 1-hour and 

Richmond-Petersburg 1997 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) Maintenance Areas 

(Richmond Area or Area). The revision 

also includes an analysis that addresses 

the impact of the removal of Stage II 

from subject gasoline dispensing 

facilities (GDFs) in the Richmond Area. 

The analysis submitted by the 

Commonwealth satisfies the 

requirements of section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). In the Final Rules 

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

approving the State’s SIP submittal as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule and the 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

prepared in support of this rulemaking 

action. A detailed summary of EPA’s 

review and rationale for proposing to 

approve this SIP revision may be found 

in the TSD prepared in support of this 

rulemaking action and is available on 

line at http://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket number EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0142. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by September 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0142 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0142, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0142. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS