71022 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

determined that this rule does not have 

implications for federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the ‘‘FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT’’ section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does 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. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action 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 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 guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves the 

creation of a safety zone. The safety 

zone is implemented to protect persons 

and property due to removal of two 16 

inch pipelines at mile 45 Upper 

Mississippi River. This rule is 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 

2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination will 

be made available as indicated under 

the ADDRESSES section. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. A new temporary § 165.T08–0878 is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 165.T08–0878 Safety Zone; Upper 

Mississippi River MM 44 to 46, Thebes, IL. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: all waters of the Upper 

Mississippi River from mile 44 to 46, 

Thebes, IL., extending the entire width 

of the Upper Mississippi River. 

(b) Effective dates. This rule is 

effective from November 1, 2014 to 

January 31, 2015 or until pipeline 

removal is completed, whichever occurs 

first. Enforcement times and specific 

restrictions will be announced via 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM). 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into this zone during the 

enforcement period is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

(COTP) Ohio Valley or a designated 

representative. 

(2) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

COTP and designated on-scene patrol 

personnel. On-scene patrol personnel 

include commissioned, warrant, and 

petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

(3) Persons or vessels may request 

deviation from the safety zone 

restriction prescribed under paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section from the COTP 

Ohio Valley or a designated 

representative who may be a 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

of the Coast Guard. The COTP Ohio 

Valley may be contacted by telephone at 

1–800–253–7465 or on VHF–FM 

channel 16. 

(d) Informational Broadcasts. The 

Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a 

designated representative will inform 

the public through broadcast notices to 

mariners of the enforcement period for 

the safety zone as well as any changes 

in the dates and times of enforcement. 

Dated: October 2, 2014. 

R.V. Timme, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Ohio Valley. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28270 Filed 11–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2014–0698] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; USCGC Hamilton 

Commissioning Ceremony, Charleston 

Harbor, Charleston, SC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary Final Rule. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71023 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary security zone 

in the navigable waters of the 

Charleston Harbor, Charleston, SC 

within Coast Guard Sector Charleston’s 

Captain of the Port Zone. The security 

zone is necessary to prevent damage or 

injury to vessels and to safeguard 

Charleston Harbor during the USCGC 

HAMILTON commissioning ceremony. 

Persons and vessels will be prohibited 

from entering, transiting through, 

anchoring in, or remaining within the 

security zone unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 5 and 6, 2014 and will be 

enforced from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on 

December 6, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble are part of docket USCG– 

2014–0698. To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type the docket 

number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rulemaking. You may also visit the 

Docket Management Facility in Room 

W12–140 on the ground floor of the 

Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher 

Ruleman, Sector Charleston Waterways 

Management, U.S. Coast Guard; 

telephone (843) 740–3184, email 

christopher.l.ruleman@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Acronyms 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because the 

Coast Guard did not have sufficient time 

to publish an NPRM and to receive 

public comments prior to the event. Any 

delay in the effective date of this rule 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest. The event will occur 

before a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking could be completed, thereby 

jeopardizing the safety and security of 

the commissioning ceremony. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. For the same reasons 

discussed in the preceding paragraph, 

delaying the effective date of this rule 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest. 

B. Basis and Purpose 

The legal basis for the rule is the 

Coast Guard’s authority to establish 

regulated security zones and other 

limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 

U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 

CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

The security zone is necessary to 

safeguard the Port of Charleston during 

the USCGC HAMILTON commissioning 

ceremony. 

C. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on these statutes and executive 

orders. 

1. Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 

or under section 1 of Executive Order 

13563. The office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under those 

Orders. The economic impact of this 

rule is not significant for the following 

reasons: (1) the security zone will only 

be enforced for a total of eight hours; (2) 

although persons and vessels may not 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the security zone without 

authorization from the Captain of the 

Port Charleston or a designated 

representative, they may operate in the 

surrounding area during the 

enforcement period; and (3) the Coast 

Guard will provide advance notification 

of the security zone to the local 

maritime community by Local Notice to 

Mariners and Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners. 

2. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended, 

requires federal agencies to consider the 

potential impact of regulations on small 

entities during rulemaking. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule would affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: the owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit in a portion 

of the Charleston Harbor in Charleston, 

South Carolina from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 

p.m. on December 6, 2014. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

Regulatory Planning and Review section 

above, this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

3. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104– 

121), we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule. If the rule 

would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, above. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71024 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

4. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

5. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on 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. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

determined that this rule does not have 

implications for federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such expenditure, we 

do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does 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. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action 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 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 guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have determined that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a 

security zone on waters of the 

Charleston Harbor, South Carolina 

during the USCGC HAMILTON 

commissioning ceremony on Saturday, 

December 6, 2014. Persons and vessels 

are prohibited from entering, transiting 

through, anchoring in, or remaining 

within the security zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Charleston or a designated 

representative. This rule is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph (34)(g) of Figure 2–1 of the 

Commandant Instruction. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 165.T07–0698 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T07–0698 Security Zone; USCGC 

HAMILTON commissioning ceremony, 

Charleston Harbor, Charleston, SC. 

(a) Regulated Area. The rule 

establishes a security zone on certain 

waters of the Charleston Harbor, South 

Carolina. The security zone will create 

a regulated area that encompasses a 

portion of the waterway; all waters of 

the Charleston Harbor within 500 yards 

of the South Carolina Ports Authority 

Union Street Pier. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port Charleston in the 

enforcement of the regulated area. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the regulated area 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Charleston or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, or remain within 

the regulated area may contact the 

Captain of the Port Charleston by 

telephone at 843–740–7050, or a 

designated representative via VHF radio 

on channel 16, to request authorization. 

If authorization to enter, transit through, 

or remain within the regulated area is 

granted by the Captain of the Port 

Charleston or a designated 

representative, all persons and vessels 

receiving such authorization must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Effective and enforcement period. 

This rule is effective on December 5 

through 6, 2014 and will be enforced 

from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on 

December 6, 2014. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71025 

1 79 FR 43742 (August 11, 2014); EPA–R07–OAR– 

2014–0550; FRL 9915–02–Region 7. 

2 Id. 

Dated: November 4, 2014. 

R. R. Rodriguez, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28271 Filed 11–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0550; FRL–9919–87– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; 

2014 Iowa State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State 

of Iowa. This final action will approve 

a revision to Iowa’s SIP for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

proposed action was published in the 

Federal Register on August 11, 2014. As 

stated in the proposal, the SIP revision 

submitted by the state satisfies the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and will keep the Muscatine 

County, Iowa area in attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0550. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 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, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

(913) 551–7942, or by email at algoeeakin.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is granting final approval to the 

Iowa SIP submitted in response to a July 

14, 2011, SIP Call related to the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 76 FR 41424. EPA 

proposed approval of this SIP revision 

on August 11, 2014. 79 FR 46742. A 

complete background of this rulemaking 

can be found in the docket for the 

proposal. 

II. Have the requirements for 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, as 

explained above and in more detail in 

the technical support document which 

is part of this document, the revision 

meets the substantive SIP requirements 

of the CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

The public comment period on EPA’s 

proposed rule opened August 11, 2014, 

the date of its publication in the Federal 

Register, and closed on September 10, 

2014. During this period, EPA received 

three comment letters from the Iowa 

Chapter of the Sierra Club, Iowa 

Environmental Council, and Clean Air 

Muscatine, Inc. 

Comment 1: Two commenters 

commented on the negative effects of 

PM2.5 emissions the citizens of 

Muscatine. One commenter stated that 

excessive PM2.5 emissions ‘‘deprive 

health people of their ability to live 

their lives as actively as they might 

wish.’’ One commenter stated that PM2.5

causes and exacerbates respiratory 

illness. A commenter also stated that 

excessive PM2.5 emissions impede a 

community’s ability to enjoy economic 

progress. 

Response 1: EPA agrees that PM2.5

emissions can have negative health and 

economic effects on a community. EPA 

issued a SIP Call to Iowa to address the 

violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in the Muscatine County, area. 

76 FR 41424. The July 30, 2014, 

Technical Support Document (TSD) for 

this proposed action 1 shows that the 

monitored values are currently below 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In this 

SIP being finalized today the State of 

Iowa has identified permanent and 

enforceable strategies to provide for 

continued attainment. 

Comment 2: Two commenters 

commented on the emissions from Grain 

Processing Corporation (GPC). Both 

commenters note that GPC has a history 

of pollution and violating the CAA. 

Both commenters noted the enforcement 

action taken by the Iowa Attorney 

General’s office regarding violations at 

GPC. Both commenters also expressed 

concerns about GPC complying with the 

terms of the SIP. 

Response 2: The final action today 

incorporates Iowa’s SIP into the 

Federally-approved SIP. As a result, 

EPA will have the authority to enforce 

any violations of the SIP pursuant to 

section 113 of the CAA. EPA intends to 

monitor compliance with the 

obligations set forth in Iowa’s SIP for the 

Muscatine County area to ensure the 

area continues to attain the NAAQS. 

Further, the SIP contingency measures 

provide, that if, after the 

implementation of controls, the area 

violates the standard, the contingency 

measures will go into effect to reduce 

PM2.5 emissions in the Muscatine 

County area. These protections ensure 

that emission sources will comply with 

the terms of the SIP. 

Comment 3: Two commenters stated 

that the 2017 attainment date was later 

than what was proposed in the SIP Call. 

One commenter stated that the 

technology to ‘‘clean the air’’ has been 

around for years and the corrective 

measures proposed are to be completed 

by 2017. 

Response 3: The July 30, 2014, TSD 

for the proposed action 2 shows that the 

monitored values for PM2.5 in the 

Muscatine area are currently below the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

State of Iowa has identified permanent 

and enforceable strategies to provide for 

continued attainment. Further, the TSD 

discusses the complexity of the projects 

GPC is implementing. The number of 

pollutant-reducing projects as well as 

the necessity of a phased construction 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES