Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Iowa State Implementation Plan Revision, 9706-9709 [2011-3862]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
9706
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
another section. 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. 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will be withdrawn and all public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 March 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2011–0011 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail: fernandez.cristina@
epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0011,
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–2011–
0011. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Feb 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
https://www.regulations.gov index.
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 in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Maryland Department of
the Environment, 1800 Washington
Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by
e-mail at shandruk.irene@epa.gov.
For
further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final
action, with the same title, concerning
the definition of ‘‘fuel-burning
equipment,’’ that is located in the ‘‘Rules
and Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register publication. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: February 1, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011–3723 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2010–1083; FRL–9268–4]
Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of
Implementation Plan; Call for Iowa
State Implementation Plan Revision
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) authority in the Clean Air Act
(CAA), section 110 (k)(5), to call for plan
revisions, EPA is proposing to find that
the Iowa State Implementation Plan
(SIP) is substantially inadequate to
maintain the 2006 24-hour National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for PM2.5 in Muscatine County, Iowa.
The specific SIP deficiencies needing
revision are described below. EPA is
also proposing to finalize a timeline for
Iowa to revise its SIP to correct these
deficiencies by a date which is no later
than 18 months after the effective date
of the final rule.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2010–1083, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Tracey Casburn,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
your comments to: Tracey Casburn,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2010–
1083. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM
22FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
https://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 e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
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
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Planning and Development Branch,
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101. 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:
Tracey Casburn at (913) 551–7016 or by
e-mail at casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This section provides additional
information by addressing the following
questions:
I. What is the basis for the proposed finding?
II. How can Iowa correct the inadequacy and
when must the correction be submitted?
III. What action is EPA proposing?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
V. Statutory Authority
I. What is the basis for the proposed
finding?
EPA promulgated the 2006 24-hour
NAAQS for PM2.5 on October 17, 2006
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Feb 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
(71 FR 61144) based on significant
evidence and numerous health studies
demonstrating that serious health effects
are associated with exposures to fine
particulate matter. The 2006 standard
for 24-hour PM2.5 was set at a level of
35 micrograms (μg) of particulate matter
less than 2.5 micrometers (μm) in
diameter, per cubic meter of air. The
standard is met when the 3-year average
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations is equal to or less than
35μg/m3. The computation of this 3-year
average of the 98th percentiles of 24hour concentrations is commonly
referred to as the design value (dv)and
is based on the most recent 3 years of
quality assured data.
Section 110 (a) (2) (B) requires each
state to establish and operate
appropriate devices, methods, systems
and procedures necessary to monitor,
compile and analyze data on ambient air
quality. Pursuant to this authority, the
state maintains a network of air quality
monitors for PM2.5 in accordance with
40 CFR Part 58 which meets applicable
requirements. Monitors called State or
Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)
make up the ambient air quality
monitoring sites whose data are
primarily used for determining
compliance with the NAAQS.
In accordance with section 107(d)
(1)(B) of the CAA, no later than 2 years
after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, the Administrator must
designate all areas, or portions thereof,
within each state as nonattainment,
attainment or unclassifiable. This
process is commonly referred to as the
‘‘designations process’’.
With respect to all pollutants,
including PM2.5, if monitoring data
demonstrates that an area does not
comply with the NAAQS, or contributes
to a violation in a nearby area, that area
is designated as nonattainment. If
monitoring data demonstrates that an
area complies with the NAAQS, and the
area does not contribute to air quality
problems in nearby areas that do not
comply with the NAAQS, the area is
designated attainment. If there is not
enough information to determine if an
area is compliant with the NAAQS it is
designated as unclassifiable. On
November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated
its final designations for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standards (74 FR 58688).
These designations were determined
based upon air quality monitoring data
for calendar years 2006–2008 (which
were the most recent three years of data
prior to the initial designations). The
entire State of Iowa was designated as
unclassifiable/attainment (74 FR 58729)
at that time based on that set of data.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9707
On May 20, 2010, the state submitted
certified SLAMS monitoring data, for
calendar year 2009, in accordance with
40 CFR Part 58. When determining the
design value (dv) for the current 24-hour
PM2.5 standard based upon air quality
monitoring data for calendar years
2007–2009, EPA concluded that a
monitor in the Muscatine area recorded
data violating the standard. The monitor
(site ID# 191390015) is located in the
City of Muscatine, Muscatine County,
IA, and is the only PM2.5 State or Local
Air Monitoring (SLAM) station in the
county. The SLAM stations make up the
ambient air quality monitoring sites that
are primarily needed for NAAQS
comparisons. Site ID# 191390015 is
often referred to as the ‘‘Garfield School’’
monitor and will be referred to as such
in this proposed rulemaking. The 2007–
2009 dv for the Garfield School monitor
is 38 μg/m3. Historically, the Garfield
School monitoring location has
recorded fluctuating PM2.5 values very
near or above the NAAQs. Historical
values are shown in Table 1.
Preliminary data for 2010 indicate that
the Muscatine area continues to violate
the 2006 24-hour standard based on
2008–2010 monitoring data.
The area was not designated
nonattainment at the time of EPA’s
initial designations rulemaking for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2009,
because, at that time, available certified
monitoring data demonstrated that the
dv was compliant with the standard.
TABLE 1—HISTORICAL DESIGN VALUES
AT THE GARFIELD SCHOOL MONITOR
Monitoring years
2001–2003
2002–2004
2003–2005
2004–2006
2005–2007
2006–2008
2007–2009
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
Design
value
35
35
38
34
36
35
38
Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA
provides, in relevant part, that
‘‘[w]henever the Administrator finds
that the applicable implementation plan
for an area is substantially inadequate to
attain or maintain the relevant national
ambient air quality standard,* * *the
Administrator shall require that state to
revise the plan as necessary to correct
such inadequacies.’’
Because monitor data in the
Muscatine area show violations of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, based
upon 2007–2009 data, and have shown
violations of the standard in the past
(based upon 2005–2007 data), EPA
E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM
22FEP1
9708
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
believes the SIP is substantially
inadequate to maintain the 2006 24hour NAAQS for PM2.5 in this area.
Therefore, EPA proposes to require
revisions to the SIP as described further
below.
II. How can Iowa correct the
inadequacy and when must the
correction be submitted?
EPA believes that the state must
submit several specific plan elements to
EPA in order to correct the inadequacy
of the SIP indentified above. These
specific elements are: (1) A revised
emissions inventory for all sources
(including area sources, mobile sources
and other significant sources) that could
be expected to contribute to the
violating monitor because of their size,
proximity, or other relevant factors
consistent with 40 CFR 51.114(a); (2) a
modeling demonstration consistent with
Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 showing
what reductions will be needed to attain
and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the
area; (3) adopted measures to achieve
reductions determined necessary to
attain and maintain the NAAQS, with
enforceable schedules for implementing
the measures as expeditiously as
practicable; and (4) contingency
measures as described below.
The Muscatine area is currently
designated as attainment of the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standards, however, EPA is
proposing to find the SIP substantially
inadequate to maintain the 2006 24hour NAAQS for PM2.5, due to the
monitor in the Muscatine area (Garfield
School) recording data violating the
standard (considering 2007–2009
monitoring data). In this instance, the
CAA requirements relating to
nonattainment areas are not expressly
applicable. Therefore, consistent with
the general SIP requirements in section
110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to
require a SIP revision which includes
adopted measures to achieve reductions
determined necessary to attain and
maintain the NAAQS, as well as
contingency measures, as described
below.
EPA is proposing that all adopted
measures to achieve reductions,
determined through the modeling
demonstration to be necessary to attain
and maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard, should be implemented no
later than two years after the issuance of
the final SIP Call. EPA believes that this
schedule is reasonable, because the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
has already performed a substantial
portion of its analysis of the nature of
the PM2.5 problem in the area and the
types of controls which might be
necessary to address the problem.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Feb 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
EPA believes that it is reasonable to
expect that the design value during the
calendar year after the necessary
controls are implemented should be at
or below the 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
EPA proposes that the contingency
measures would be triggered if the
design value is above the standard in
the calendar year after the
implementation of controls necessary
for attainment, or in any subsequent
year. EPA is proposing that the SIP
revision 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 requirements for
contingency measures in CAA Section
175A(d). To do so, the SIP revision
should clearly identify measures which
could be timely adopted and
implemented, a schedule and procedure
for adoption and implementation, and a
specific time limit for action by the
state. The schedule for adoption and
implementation should be as
expeditious as practicable, but no longer
than 24 months after being triggered.
EPA also seeks comments on whether
any additional contingency measure
triggers would be appropriate, or
whether contingency measures should
be adopted in advance and available for
prompt implementation once triggered.
Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA provides
that after EPA makes a finding that a
plan is substantially inadequate, it may
establish a reasonable deadline for the
state to submit SIP revisions correcting
the deficiencies, but the date cannot be
later than 18 months after the state is
notified of the finding. Consistent with
this provision, EPA proposes to require
the submittal within 18 months
following any final finding of
substantial inadequacy. EPA proposes
that the 18-month period would begin
on the effective date of the final
rulemaking. EPA seeks comments on the
proposed deadline and on whether an
alternate deadline should be
established.
EPA is proposing to require the state
to establish a specific date in its SIP
revision by which the Muscatine area
will attain the standard. The date must
be as expeditious as practicable based
upon implementation of Federal, state
and local measures. As discussed
previously, we expect that the date will
be no later than the beginning of the
calendar year after the implementation
of controls necessary for attainment
(two years after the finding of
substantial inadequacy and SIP Call).
EPA will establish a specific date for
attainment at the same time it takes final
action on the state’s SIP revision.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Notwithstanding the date for
attainment, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard can only be achieved when the
average of three consecutive years of
data shows those PM2.5 concentrations
are at or below the levels of the 2006 24hour standard.
III. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA proposes the following actions
relating to the Iowa SIP for PM2.5 for
Muscatine County. EPA proposes to:
1. Find that the SIP is substantially
inadequate to maintain the NAAQS for
24-hour PM2.5 in the area;
2. Require that Iowa revise and submit
to EPA a SIP to meet all of the
applicable requirements of section 110
of the Act with respect to PM2.5 in the
area, including an emissions inventory,
modeled attainment demonstration,
adopted control measures and
contingency measures as described in
this proposal;
3. Require the state to submit
revisions to the SIP within 18 months of
the effective date of the final SIP Call
determination;
4. Require that all adopted measures
to achieve reductions determined
necessary to attain and maintain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard be
implemented no later than two years
after the issuance of the SIP Call
determination.
5. Require that the SIP provide for
attainment and maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Muscatine
County, IA area as expeditiously as
practicable, which EPA expects to be no
later than the beginning of the calendar
year after the implementation of
controls necessary for attainment (two
years after the finding of substantial
inadequacy and SIP Call).
We are soliciting comments on these
proposed actions. Final rulemaking will
occur after consideration of any
comments.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, a finding of
substantial inadequacy and subsequent
obligation for a state to revise its SIP
arise out of section 110(a) and 110(k)(5).
The finding and state obligation do not
directly impose any new regulatory
requirements. In addition, the state
obligation is not legally enforceable by
a court of law. EPA would review its
intended action on any SIP submittal in
response to the finding in light of
applicable statutory and Executive
Order requirements, in subsequent
rulemaking acting on such SIP
submittal. For those reasons, this
proposed action:
E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM
22FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the finding
of SIP inadequacy would not apply in
Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action
is provided by sections 110 and 301 of
the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410
and 7601).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Iowa, Particulate
matter, State Implementation Plan.
Dated: February 10, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011–3862 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Feb 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Chapter I
[EPA–09–0W–2010–0976–FRL–9268–5]
RIN–2009–ZA00
Water Quality Challenges in the San
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Estuary
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) to seek comments
from interested parties on possible EPA
actions to address water quality
conditions affecting aquatic resources in
the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay Delta
Estuary) in California. EPA is asking the
public to consider broadly whether EPA
should be taking new or different
actions under its programs to address
recent significant declines in multiple
aquatic species in the Bay Delta Estuary.
EPA is not limiting its request to actions
that would require rulemaking. There
may be a range of changes in EPA’s
activities in the Bay Delta Estuary that
would be constructive, including
enforcement, research, revisions to
water quality standards, etc. EPA will
consider all comments before deciding
what changes, if any, should be
pursued. After reviewing the comments
and completing its evaluation, EPA will
provide the results of its review and any
proposed next steps to the public. This
ANPR identifies specific issues on
which EPA solicits comment, including
potential site-specific water quality
standards and site-specific changes to
pesticide regulation. In addition to the
specific issues on which EPA solicits
comments, EPA is interested in
comments on any other aspects of EPA’s
programs affecting Bay Delta Estuary
aquatic resources. This notice contains
a summary version of the ANPR.
Information on accessing the
unabridged version is included in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted by April 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Written comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OW–2010–0976, may be submitted
electronically at the Federal Rulemaking
Portal (https://www.regulations.gov).
Hard copy comments should be
addressed to Erin Foresman, U.S.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9709
Environmental Protection Agency, 75
Hawthorne Street, WTR–3, San
Francisco, California 94105. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file
formats and other information about
filing.
Filing Instructions: All comments will
be included in the public docket
without change and will be made
available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
Regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
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.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., confidential
business information). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with Erin Foresman,
foresman.erin@epa.gov, (916) 557–5253.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin
Foresman at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, Water
Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105;
foresman.erin@epa.gov, (916) 557–5253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Detailed
information describing the current state
of Bay Delta Estuary aquatic resources,
summaries of scientific knowledge
regarding Bay Delta Estuary water
quality stressors, and water quality
regulatory and non-regulatory activities
in the Bay Delta Estuary is contained in
the Unabridged ANPR provided on EPA
Region 9’s Web site (https://
www.epa.gov/region9/water/watershed/
sfbay-delta/) and in the
electronic docket available at https://
E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM
22FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9706-9709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3862]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-1083; FRL-9268-4]
Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call
for Iowa State Implementation Plan Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
authority in the Clean Air Act (CAA), section 110 (k)(5), to call for
plan revisions, EPA is proposing to find that the Iowa State
Implementation Plan (SIP) is substantially inadequate to maintain the
2006 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
PM2.5 in Muscatine County, Iowa. The specific SIP
deficiencies needing revision are described below. EPA is also
proposing to finalize a timeline for Iowa to revise its SIP to correct
these deficiencies by a date which is no later than 18 months after the
effective date of the final rule.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2010-1083, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Tracey
Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2010-1083. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
[[Page 9707]]
https://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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 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: Tracey Casburn at (913) 551-7016 or by
e-mail at casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:
I. What is the basis for the proposed finding?
II. How can Iowa correct the inadequacy and when must the correction
be submitted?
III. What action is EPA proposing?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
V. Statutory Authority
I. What is the basis for the proposed finding?
EPA promulgated the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 on
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144) based on significant evidence and
numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are
associated with exposures to fine particulate matter. The 2006 standard
for 24-hour PM2.5 was set at a level of 35 micrograms
([mu]g) of particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers ([mu]m) in
diameter, per cubic meter of air. The standard is met when the 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations is equal to or
less than 35[mu]g/m\3\. The computation of this 3-year average of the
98th percentiles of 24-hour concentrations is commonly referred to as
the design value (dv)and is based on the most recent 3 years of quality
assured data.
Section 110 (a) (2) (B) requires each state to establish and
operate appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary
to monitor, compile and analyze data on ambient air quality. Pursuant
to this authority, the state maintains a network of air quality
monitors for PM2.5 in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 which
meets applicable requirements. Monitors called State or Local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) make up the ambient air quality monitoring
sites whose data are primarily used for determining compliance with the
NAAQS.
In accordance with section 107(d) (1)(B) of the CAA, no later than
2 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the Administrator
must designate all areas, or portions thereof, within each state as
nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable. This process is commonly
referred to as the ``designations process''.
With respect to all pollutants, including PM2.5, if
monitoring data demonstrates that an area does not comply with the
NAAQS, or contributes to a violation in a nearby area, that area is
designated as nonattainment. If monitoring data demonstrates that an
area complies with the NAAQS, and the area does not contribute to air
quality problems in nearby areas that do not comply with the NAAQS, the
area is designated attainment. If there is not enough information to
determine if an area is compliant with the NAAQS it is designated as
unclassifiable. On November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated its final
designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards (74 FR
58688). These designations were determined based upon air quality
monitoring data for calendar years 2006-2008 (which were the most
recent three years of data prior to the initial designations). The
entire State of Iowa was designated as unclassifiable/attainment (74 FR
58729) at that time based on that set of data.
On May 20, 2010, the state submitted certified SLAMS monitoring
data, for calendar year 2009, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58. When
determining the design value (dv) for the current 24-hour
PM2.5 standard based upon air quality monitoring data for
calendar years 2007-2009, EPA concluded that a monitor in the Muscatine
area recorded data violating the standard. The monitor (site
ID 191390015) is located in the City of Muscatine, Muscatine
County, IA, and is the only PM2.5 State or Local Air
Monitoring (SLAM) station in the county. The SLAM stations make up the
ambient air quality monitoring sites that are primarily needed for
NAAQS comparisons. Site ID 191390015 is often referred to as
the ``Garfield School'' monitor and will be referred to as such in this
proposed rulemaking. The 2007-2009 dv for the Garfield School monitor
is 38 [mu]g/m\3\. Historically, the Garfield School monitoring location
has recorded fluctuating PM2.5 values very near or above the
NAAQs. Historical values are shown in Table 1. Preliminary data for
2010 indicate that the Muscatine area continues to violate the 2006 24-
hour standard based on 2008-2010 monitoring data.
The area was not designated nonattainment at the time of EPA's
initial designations rulemaking for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard in 2009, because, at that time, available certified monitoring
data demonstrated that the dv was compliant with the standard.
Table 1--Historical Design Values at the Garfield School Monitor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design
Monitoring years value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001-2003.................................................... 35
2002-2004.................................................... 35
2003-2005.................................................... 38
2004-2006.................................................... 34
2005-2007.................................................... 36
2006-2008.................................................... 35
2007-2009.................................................... 38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA provides, in relevant part, that
``[w]henever the Administrator finds that the applicable implementation
plan for an area is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the
relevant national ambient air quality standard,* * *the Administrator
shall require that state to revise the plan as necessary to correct
such inadequacies.''
Because monitor data in the Muscatine area show violations of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, based upon 2007-2009 data, and
have shown violations of the standard in the past (based upon 2005-2007
data), EPA
[[Page 9708]]
believes the SIP is substantially inadequate to maintain the 2006 24-
hour NAAQS for PM2.5 in this area. Therefore, EPA proposes
to require revisions to the SIP as described further below.
II. How can Iowa correct the inadequacy and when must the correction be
submitted?
EPA believes that the state must submit several specific plan
elements to EPA in order to correct the inadequacy of the SIP
indentified above. These specific elements are: (1) A revised emissions
inventory for all sources (including area sources, mobile sources and
other significant sources) that could be expected to contribute to the
violating monitor because of their size, proximity, or other relevant
factors consistent with 40 CFR 51.114(a); (2) a modeling demonstration
consistent with Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 showing what reductions
will be needed to attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the
area; (3) adopted measures to achieve reductions determined necessary
to attain and maintain the NAAQS, with enforceable schedules for
implementing the measures as expeditiously as practicable; and (4)
contingency measures as described below.
The Muscatine area is currently designated as attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, however, EPA is proposing to
find the SIP substantially inadequate to maintain the 2006 24-hour
NAAQS for PM2.5, due to the monitor in the Muscatine area
(Garfield School) recording data violating the standard (considering
2007-2009 monitoring data). In this instance, the CAA requirements
relating to nonattainment areas are not expressly applicable.
Therefore, consistent with the general SIP requirements in section 110
of the CAA, EPA is proposing to require a SIP revision which includes
adopted measures to achieve reductions determined necessary to attain
and maintain the NAAQS, as well as contingency measures, as described
below.
EPA is proposing that all adopted measures to achieve reductions,
determined through the modeling demonstration to be necessary to attain
and maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, should be
implemented no later than two years after the issuance of the final SIP
Call. EPA believes that this schedule is reasonable, because the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources has already performed a substantial
portion of its analysis of the nature of the PM2.5 problem
in the area and the types of controls which might be necessary to
address the problem.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to expect that the design value
during the calendar year after the necessary controls are implemented
should be at or below the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. EPA
proposes that the contingency measures would be triggered if the design
value is above the standard in the calendar year after the
implementation of controls necessary for attainment, or in any
subsequent year. EPA is proposing that the SIP revision 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 requirements for contingency measures in
CAA Section 175A(d). To do so, the SIP revision should clearly identify
measures which could be timely adopted and implemented, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit
for action by the state. The schedule for adoption and implementation
should be as expeditious as practicable, but no longer than 24 months
after being triggered. EPA also seeks comments on whether any
additional contingency measure triggers would be appropriate, or
whether contingency measures should be adopted in advance and available
for prompt implementation once triggered.
Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA provides that after EPA makes a
finding that a plan is substantially inadequate, it may establish a
reasonable deadline for the state to submit SIP revisions correcting
the deficiencies, but the date cannot be later than 18 months after the
state is notified of the finding. Consistent with this provision, EPA
proposes to require the submittal within 18 months following any final
finding of substantial inadequacy. EPA proposes that the 18-month
period would begin on the effective date of the final rulemaking. EPA
seeks comments on the proposed deadline and on whether an alternate
deadline should be established.
EPA is proposing to require the state to establish a specific date
in its SIP revision by which the Muscatine area will attain the
standard. The date must be as expeditious as practicable based upon
implementation of Federal, state and local measures. As discussed
previously, we expect that the date will be no later than the beginning
of the calendar year after the implementation of controls necessary for
attainment (two years after the finding of substantial inadequacy and
SIP Call). EPA will establish a specific date for attainment at the
same time it takes final action on the state's SIP revision.
Notwithstanding the date for attainment, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard can only be achieved when the average of
three consecutive years of data shows those PM2.5
concentrations are at or below the levels of the 2006 24-hour standard.
III. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA proposes the following actions relating to the Iowa SIP for
PM2.5 for Muscatine County. EPA proposes to:
1. Find that the SIP is substantially inadequate to maintain the
NAAQS for 24-hour PM2.5 in the area;
2. Require that Iowa revise and submit to EPA a SIP to meet all of
the applicable requirements of section 110 of the Act with respect to
PM2.5 in the area, including an emissions inventory, modeled
attainment demonstration, adopted control measures and contingency
measures as described in this proposal;
3. Require the state to submit revisions to the SIP within 18
months of the effective date of the final SIP Call determination;
4. Require that all adopted measures to achieve reductions
determined necessary to attain and maintain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard be implemented no later than two years after
the issuance of the SIP Call determination.
5. Require that the SIP provide for attainment and maintenance of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Muscatine County, IA
area as expeditiously as practicable, which EPA expects to be no later
than the beginning of the calendar year after the implementation of
controls necessary for attainment (two years after the finding of
substantial inadequacy and SIP Call).
We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions. Final
rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, a finding of substantial inadequacy and
subsequent obligation for a state to revise its SIP arise out of
section 110(a) and 110(k)(5). The finding and state obligation do not
directly impose any new regulatory requirements. In addition, the state
obligation is not legally enforceable by a court of law. EPA would
review its intended action on any SIP submittal in response to the
finding in light of applicable statutory and Executive Order
requirements, in subsequent rulemaking acting on such SIP submittal.
For those reasons, this proposed action:
[[Page 9709]]
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the finding of SIP inadequacy would not apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
V. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 110
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410 and 7601).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Iowa, Particulate
matter, State Implementation Plan.
Dated: February 10, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-3862 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
