[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 52 (Thursday, March 18, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13343-13346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6498]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
