Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IA 059-1059a; FRL-6310-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the Iowa State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which provides for the attainment and

maintenance of the particulate matter (PM10) National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in Buffalo, Iowa. This revision

approves two state Administrative Consent Orders (ACOs) which require

reductions of PM10 emissions from two major sources of PM in

Buffalo, Iowa. Approval of this SIP revision will make the state ACOs

Federally enforceable.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on May 17, 1999 without

further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by April 19,

1999. If adverse comment is received, the EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be addressed to Wayne Kaiser, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

Copies of the state submittal are available at the following

addresses for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and the Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Air Docket

(6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information

by answering the following questions:

What is an SIP?

What is the NAAQS?

What air quality problems occurred in Buffalo, Iowa?

How was the problem addressed?

What is the control strategy?

Is the SIP revision approvable?

What are the Section 172(e) requirements?

Additional information is contained in the state submittal and in

the EPA technical support document for this notice which can be

obtained by contacting the EPA at the address above.

What Is an SIP?

Each state has an SIP containing rules, control measures, and

strategies used to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The SIP is frequently

updated by the state in order to maintain a current and effective air

pollution control program and to keep current with ongoing Federal

requirements. The EPA must review and approve revisions to the state

SIP. The Iowa SIP is published in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Part 52, Subpart Q. The state of Iowa has submitted the control

measures discussed below for approval in the Iowa SIP. Once measures

have been approved in the SIP, the EPA has the authority to directly

enforce the approved control measures.

What Is the NAAQS?

The EPA has established NAAQS for a number of pollutants including

PM. These standards are set at levels to protect public health and

welfare. The standards are published in 40 CFR Part 50. If ambient air

monitors measure violations of the standard, states are

[[Page 13344]]

required to identify the cause of the problem and to take measures

which will bring the area back within the level of the NAAQS. The 24-

hour NAAQS for PM10 is 150 micrograms per cubic meter

(g/m3), and the annual standard is 50 g/

m3.

What Air Quality Problems Occurred in Buffalo, Iowa?

In 1994 and 1995 there were violations of both the 24-hour and

annual PM10 standards at the state air monitor in Buffalo,

Iowa.

How Was the Problem Addressed?

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Air Quality Bureau,

using air dispersion modeling, identified two major PM sources which

contributed to the PM10 NAAQS violations. These were the

Lafarge Corporation Portland cement manufacturing facility and the

Linwood Mining and Minerals Corporation lime manufacturing facility.

Results of the modeling were used to establish emission reductions

necessary to prevent actual or modeled violations of the

PM10 NAAQS. The modeling was performed in accordance with

EPA requirements. (A detailed discussion of the modeling protocol and

results was provided in the state SIP submittal and is available for

review upon request.)

What Is the Control Strategy?

The IDNR negotiated enforceable emission limitations and other

control measures, means, and techniques, as well as schedules and

timetables for compliance, sufficient to ensure that the NAAQS for

PM10 will be achieved and maintained in the future. These

control measures were developed in conformance with the requirements of

40 CFR Part 51, Subpart G--Control Strategy.

These enforceable commitments have been incorporated into state

ACOs with Lafarge Corporation and Linwood Mining and Minerals

Corporation respectively. These documents constitute the basis for the

state's control strategy.

The critical control strategy conditions for each source include a

number of process and operational changes which will reduce the process

and fugitive emissions from material processing, handling, and

transporting. The ACOs contain an enforceable schedule for

implementation and completion of the control strategy conditions.

Have the Requirements for Approval of an SIP Revision Been Met?

The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal 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 notice, the revision meets the

substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act)

including Section 110 and implementing regulations.

What Are the Section 172(e) Requirements?

On July 18, 1997, the EPA relaxed the PM10 NAAQS.

Section 172(e) of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate

regulations applicable to areas such as Buffalo, which did not attain

the old standard, when the standard is relaxed. The promulgated

regulations shall provide for controls which are not less stringent

than the controls applicable to areas designated nonattainment before

such relaxation. The EPA has not yet promulgated these regulations.

With respect to the Buffalo area, the ACOs require that each

facility implement PM10 control strategies designed to

prevent future violations of the old PM10 NAAQS. Because the

new PM10 24-hour NAAQS by itself can be considered to be a

relaxation of the 24-hour PM10 standard and there is no real

distinction between the old and new annual PM10 NAAQS, the

control strategies designed to demonstrate compliance with the old

PM10 NAAQS should also suffice to ensure compliance with the

new 10 NAAQS. Thus, the revised SIP should meet the future

requirements that may be mandated in the yet-to-be promulgated Section

172(e) rulemaking. The state has committed to revise its SIP to meet

the Section 172(e) regulations when promulgated, if necessary.

Final Action: The EPA is approving a revision to the Iowa SIP which

requires source-specific PM10 emission reductions which will

result in attainment and maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS.

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should

adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective May 17, 1999

without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by

April 19, 1999.

If the EPA receives such comments, then the EPA will publish a

document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the

rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The

EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in

commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received,

the public is advised that this rule will be effective on May 17, 1999,

and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and

Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

Under E.O. 12875 the EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or

tribal government unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments or the EPA consults with those governments. If the EPA

complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires the EPA to provide to the

OMB a description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments, the

nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the

governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires the EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local, or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 1(a) of E.O. 12875

do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is

[[Page 13345]]

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866 and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that the

EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on

children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must

evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule

on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to

other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an

economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866,

and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that

would have a disproportionate effect on children.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA consults with

those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084

requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified

section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the

EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084

requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to

provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory

policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve

or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the

requirements of Section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will

not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities

because SIP approvals under Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D of the

CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements

that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP

approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-

state relationship under the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis

would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of

state action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning

SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246,

255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act'') signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, the

EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent

with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish

a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does

not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs

of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments

in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action

approves preexisting requirements under state or local law and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this

action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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. The 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 U.S. Comptroller General prior to publication

of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule''

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

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 May 17, 1999. 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.

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, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: February 19, 1999.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Q--Iowa

2. In Sec. 52.820 the entries for Permit Nos. 98-AQ-07 and 98-AQ-08

are added to the end of the table in paragraph (d), to read as follows:

Sec. 52.820 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(d) EPA-approved Iowa source-specific permits.

[[Page 13346]]

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

State

Name of source Order/permit No. effective EPA approval date Comments

date

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

* * * * * *

*

Linwood Mining and Minerals 98-AQ-07 3/13/98 March 18, 1999; 64 FR 13346 PM10 control plan

Corporation. for Buffalo,

Iowa.

Lafarge Corporation............ 98-AQ-08 3/19/98 March 18, 1999; 64 FR 13346 PM10 control plan

for Buffalo,

Iowa.

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

[FR Doc. 99-6498 Filed 3-17-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P