Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36433 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes if adopted. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

Accordingly, the Postal Service 

proposes the following changes to 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM), incorporated by reference in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (see 39 CFR 

111.1): 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301– 

307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401–404, 414, 416, 3001–3018, 3201–3220, 

3401–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3629, 3631– 

3633, 3641, 3681–3685, and 5001. 

■ 2. Revise the Mailing Standards of the 

United States Postal Service, Domestic 

Mail Manual (DMM) to read as follows: 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) 

* * * * * 

500 Additional Services 

* * * * * 

508 Recipient Services 

* * * * * 

5.0 Caller Service 

* * * * * 

5.2 Basic Information 

* * * * * 

[Revise the title and text of 5.2.7 to 

read as follows:] 

5.2.7 Exemptions 

Postmasters may exempt caller service 

customers from the requirement in 5.2.6 

that they must use their assigned Post 

Office Box number in their mailing 

address under the following 

circumstances: 

a. The customer has been 

continuously receiving firm holdout 

service since July 3, 1994; or 

b. The customer is in compliance with 

the requirements in 5.9. 

* * * * * 

[Add new section 5.9 to read as 

follows:] 

5.9 Customized Address 

For an annual fee (see 5.9.1), caller 

service customers assigned a unique 5- 

digit ZIP Code may use one or more 

authorized delivery address line(s) in 

place of their assigned PO Box 

number(s). The city, state, and ZIP Code 

must remain as provided in the 

customer’s unique ZIP Code agreement 

and caller service agreement. 

5.9.1 Required Use 

Customized Address is restricted for 

use with letters and flats. Any parcels 

that are delivered to the address that do 

not bear evidence of postage payment 

would be delivered postage due at the 

appropriate Parcel Select rate. 

5.9.2 Application and Fees 

A current approved caller service 

customer must complete the 

Customized Address customer 

agreement at their approved postal 

facility and pay a one-time onboarding 

fee of $2000. After the first year, a fee 

of $1000 is charged for each authorized 

delivery address line per annual (12- 

month) period. 

5.9.3 USPS Actions 

USPS will not authorize requested 

delivery address lines until it verifies 

the applicant’s primary and secondary 

forms of identification as acceptable 

under 608.10.0, confirms availability at 

the requested facility, and makes 

scheme preparations. USPS may revoke 

authorization of a customized address at 

any time upon notice to the customer. 

When requested delivery address lines 

are approved and applicable fees 

received, USPS will provide written 

authorization to the applicant. 

5.9.4 Transferability 

Authorized delivery address lines 

may not be transferred to another 

facility or customer. 

5.9.5 Past-Due Caller Fee 

Payments for customized addresses 

must be received at least 45 days before 

the applicable semiannual period. 

Payment of the renewal fee is due at 

least 45 days before the last day of the 

last month of the current period. 

Payment may be made for the next 

semiannual or annual period, as 

appropriate. If, on notice, the customer 

does not pay the fee by the 30th day 

before the end of the current payment 

period, the barcode sortation scheme 

will be revised to remove the separation 

for the caller. Once that change is made, 

the caller must reapply to obtain the 

former customized address. 

5.9.6 Refund 

A pro-rata refund is made only for 

future prepaid periods if a caller 

discontinues customized address or 

USPS revokes authorization of a 

customized address. No refund is made 

for the remaining part of the current fee 

period. 

* * * * * 

Joshua J. Hofer, 

Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12846 Filed 6–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–EPA–R09–OAR–2022– 

0480; FRL–9873–01–R9] 

Air Plan Disapproval; California; 

Antelope Valley Air Quality 

Management District and Mojave 

Desert Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove revisions to the Antelope 

Valley Air Quality Management District 

(AVAQMD) and the Mojave Desert Air 

Quality Management District 

(MDAQMD) portions of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

concerning rules submitted to address 

section 185 of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act) with respect to the 1-hour 

ozone standard. We are proposing 

action on these local rules that were 

submitted as equivalent alternatives to a 

statutory section 185 program. We are 

taking comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 18, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2022–0480 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
36434 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1We have previously set out the legal rationale 

for equivalent alternative section 185 programs. See 

76 FR 45212 (July 28, 2011), and 77 FR 1895 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donnique Sherman, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 947–4129 or by 

email at sherman.donnique@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules? 

B. Do these rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve These Rules 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules proposed for 

disapproval with the dates that they 

were adopted by the local agencies and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local Agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

AVAQMD ......................... 315 Federal Clean Air Act Section 185 Penalty ................................... 10/18/11 12/14/11 

MDAQMD ........................ 315 Federal Clean Air Act Section 185 Penalty ................................... 10/14/11 12/14/11

On June 14, 2012, the submittals for 

AVAQMD Rule 315 and MDAQMD Rule 

315 were deemed by operation of law to 

meet the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be 

met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

There are no previous versions of 

AVAQMD Rule 315 in the SIP, although 

the AVAQMD adopted an earlier 

version of this rule on February 15, 

2011, and CARB submitted it to us on 

April 22, 2011. We consider this earlier 

submittal to have been superseded by 

the December 14, 2011 submittal. While 

we can act on only the most recently 

submitted version, we have also 

reviewed materials provided with 

previous submittals. 

There are no previous versions of 

MDAQMD Rule 315 in the SIP, although 

the MDAQMD adopted an earlier 

version of this rule on February 28, 

2011, and CARB submitted it to us on 

April 22, 2011. We consider this earlier 

submittal to have been superseded by 

the December 14, 2011 submittal. While 

we can act on only the most recently 

submitted version, we have also 

reviewed materials provided with 

previous submittals. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), (f) and 

185 of the Act, states with ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as Severe 

or Extreme are required to submit a SIP 

revision that requires major stationary 

sources of volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) or oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

emissions in the area to pay a fee if the 

area fails to attain the standard by the 

attainment date. The required SIP 

revision must provide for annual 

payment of the fees, computed in 

accordance with CAA section 185(b). 

The purpose of AVAQMD Rule 315 

and MDAQMD Rule 315 is to satisfy the 

requirements of sections 182 and 185 of 

the Act by utilizing an equivalency 

approach consistent with the principles 

of section 172(e) of the Act. Under these 

rules, AVAQMD and MDAQMD will 

track, calculate, analyze, and report on 

expenditures designed to result in VOC 

or NOX reductions within the Districts, 

to implement an alternative program 

that is not less stringent than a statutory 

CAA section 185 fee program. The rules 

include calculation of the CAA section 

185 fee obligation, establishment of a 

CAA section 185 equivalency ‘‘Tracking 

Account,’’ an annual demonstration of 

equivalency, reporting to CARB and the 

EPA, and a provision requiring major 

sources to pay fees directly in the event 

the area fails to establish equivalency. 

The ‘‘Tracking Account’’ would include 

funds from qualified programs that are 

surplus to the 1-hour ozone SIP and 

designed to result in direct reductions 

or facilitate future reductions of VOC or 

NOX emissions, as approved by the 

EPA. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating these 

rules? 

SIP rules must be enforceable (see 

CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not 

interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA 

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), 

and must not modify certain SIP control 

requirements in nonattainment areas 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 

193). The EPA is also evaluating these 

rules for consistency with the statutory 

requirements of CAA section 185. 

Equivalent alternative programs 

designed to meet the CAA section 185 

obligation for the 1-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

must be consistent with the principles 

of CAA section 172(e) and must be ‘‘not 

less stringent’’ than the statutory section 

185 program. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 

FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ 

EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised 

January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ 

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little 

Bluebook). 

B. Do these rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

AVAQMD Rule 315 and MDAQMD 

Rule 315 implement a fee equivalency 

approach consistent with the principles 

of CAA section 172(e).1 The rules are 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36435 

(January 12, 2012) and the accompanying docket 

materials. 

largely consistent with general CAA 

requirements regarding SIP 

submissions. However, the EPA 

proposes to disapprove the rules 

because they contain provisions that do 

not meet our evaluation criteria and 

affect rule enforceability and stringency. 

These deficiencies are summarized 

below and discussed further in the 

technical support document (TSD) for 

these rules. 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

These provisions do not satisfy the 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of title I of the Act and prevent full 

approval of the SIP submittal. We 

propose to disapprove the SIP revision 

based on the following deficiencies: 

1. AVAQMD Rule 315 refers to the term 

‘‘Major Facility’’ as defined in ‘‘District Rule 

1301.’’ The current SIP-approved Rule 1301 

for AVAQMD does not contain a definition 

of ‘‘Major Facility.’’ 

2. The Districts did not provide a 

justification for the method chosen to 

calculate alternate baseline emissions for 

facilities with emissions that are irregular, 

cyclical, or otherwise vary significantly. 

3. The rules establish an area-wide 

equivalency ‘‘Tracking Account.’’ This 

system requires the cooperation and 

coordination of three districts: AVAQMD, 

MDAQMD, and the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD). Each rule 

requires the respective Air Pollution Control 

Officer (APCO) to request an accounting from 

other Districts, but there is no requirement 

for the APCO to provide their accounting to 

the other Districts. The rules assume 

accounting across the three Districts with the 

same system in place. SCAQMD does not 

have a rule that contains the same provisions. 

As a result, the area-wide accounting system 

is not enforceable. 

4. The formula for calculating the penalty 

fee needs correcting to properly reflect the 

inflation adjustment based on the Consumer 

Price Index. 

The TSD for AVAQMD Rule 315 and 

MDAQMD Rule 315 contains further 

discussion and analysis of these 

deficiencies. 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve These Rules 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the Districts modify these 

rules. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, we are proposing full 

disapproval of submitted AVAQMD 

Rule 315 and MDAQMD Rule 315. If we 

finalize this disapproval, the final 

disapproval action would trigger 

sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) 

and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the EPA 

approves subsequent SIP revisions that 

correct the rule deficiencies within 18 

months of the effective date of the final 

action. In addition to the sanctions, 

CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that the 

EPA must promulgate a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) addressing 

any disapproved elements of the plan 

within two years after the effective date 

of the disapproval unless the State 

submits, and the EPA approves, the 

required SIP submittal. As a result of the 

EPA’s January 5, 2010 determination 

that California had failed to submit the 

required CAA section 185 fee programs 

for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for certain 

nonattainment areas (75 FR 232), the 

EPA is already subject to a statutory 

deadline to promulgate a FIP for this 

purpose. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed disapproval for 

the next 30 days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA, because this proposed SIP 

disapproval, if finalized, will not inand-of itself create any new information 

collection burdens, but will simply 

disapprove certain state requirements 

for inclusion in the SIP. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This proposed SIP disapproval, 

if finalized, will not in-and-of itself 

create any new requirements but will 

simply disapprove certain state 

requirements for inclusion in the SIP. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action proposes to 

disapprove 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 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP revision 

that the EPA is proposing to disapprove 

would not apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because this proposed SIP disapproval, 

if finalized, will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations, but will 

simply disapprove certain state 

requirements for inclusion in the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
36436 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 12, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13045 Filed 6–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0483; FRL–9913–01– 

R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Iowa; State 

Implementation Plan and State 

Operating Permits Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Iowa State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Iowa 

Operating Permit Program. The 

revisions update incorporations by 

reference to EPA methods for measuring 

air pollutant emissions, performance 

testing (stack testing) and continuous 

monitoring. These revisions do not 

impact the stringency of the SIP or have 

an adverse effect on air quality. The 

EPA’s proposed approval of this rule 

revision is being done in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 18, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2022–0483 to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bethany Olson, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7905; 

email address: olson.bethany@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Written Comments 

II. What is being addressed in this document? 

III. What SIP revisions are being proposed by 

EPA? 

IV. What operating permit plan revisions are 

being proposed by EPA? 

V. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP and the operating permit plan 

revisions been met? 

VI. What action is the EPA taking? 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2022– 

0483, at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

II. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Iowa SIP and the 

Operating Permits Program received on 

October 20, 2021. The revisions 

incorporate recent changes to Iowa 

Administrative Code. The following 

chapters are impacted: 

• Chapter 20, ‘‘Scope of Title— 

Definitions;’’ 

• Chapter 22, ‘‘Controlling 

Pollution;’’ 

• Chapter 23, ‘‘Emission Standards 

for Contaminants;’’ and 

• Chapter 25, ‘‘Measurement of 

Emissions.’’ 

The proposed revisions update 

incorporations by reference to EPA 

methods for measuring air pollutant 

emissions, performance testing (stack 

testing) and continuous monitoring. 

EPA proposes to find that these 

revisions meet the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act, do not impact the 

stringency of the SIP, and do not 

adversely impact air quality. The full 

text of these changes can be found in the 

State’s submission, which is included in 

the docket for this action. 

Sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) allow EPA to delegate 

authority to states for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). 

EPA has delegated authority to Iowa for 

approved portions of these sections of 

the CAA. Changes made to Iowa’s 

Chapter 23 pertaining to new and 

revised NSPS and NESHAPs are not 

directly approved into the SIP, but 

rather, are adopted by reference. Thus, 

EPA is not proposing to approve the 

changes to Chapter 23 of the Iowa 

Administrative Code into the state’s SIP. 

III. What SIP revisions are being 

proposed by EPA? 

The EPA is proposing the following 

revisions to the Iowa SIP: 

Chapter 20, Subrule 20.2, Scope of 

Title—Definitions: The state revised the 

definition of ‘‘EPA reference method’’ to 

adopt the most current performance test 

(stack test) method as specified in 40 

CFR part 51, appendix M (as amended 

or corrected through October 7, 2020); 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A (as 

amended or corrected through October 

7, 2020); 40 CFR part 61, appendix B (as 

amended or corrected through October 

7, 2020); and 40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A (as amended or corrected through 

December 2, 2020). This subrule was 

also revised to adopt the most current 

minimum performance specifications 

and quality assurance procedures for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1