Approval of Iowa's Air Quality Implementation Plan; Muscatine Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area; Availability of Supplemental Information and Reopening of the Comment Period, 997-1001 [2018-00026]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
PART 111—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR
part 111 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301–
307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101,
401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201–
3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632,
3633, and 5001.
2. Revise the following sections of
Mailing Standards of the United States
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM), as follows:
■
Mailing Standards of the United
States Postal Service, Domestic Mail
Manual (DMM)
*
*
*
*
Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
*
602
Addressing
*
*
5.0
Move Update Standards
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–00006 Filed 1–8–18; 8:45 am]
*
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise the heading and text of 5.2 to
read as follows:]
5.2 Authorized Methods
Mailer Move Update Process
Certification and USPS-approved
alternative methods are authorized for
meeting the Move Update standard. The
National Customer Support Center
administers and approves both Mailer
Move Update Process Certification and
alternative methods.
5.2.1 Mailer Move Update Process
Certification
Mailer Move Update Process
Certification methods are as follows:
a. Address Change Service (ACS).
b. National Change of Address
Linkage System (NCOALink). This
includes both pre-mail NCOALink
processing systems and the physical
mailpiece processing equipment system:
National Change of Address Linkage
System Mail Processing Equipment
(NCOALink MPE). See the NCOALink
page (NCOALink MPE Solutions) on
www.postalpro.usps.com for more
information on the MPE application.
c. Applicable ancillary service
endorsements under 507.1.5.1 or
507.1.5.3, except ‘‘Forwarding Service
Requested.’’
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
b. For First-Class Mail only: Mailer
Move Update Process Certification and
USPS-approved alternative methods for
mailers with legitimate restrictions on
incorporating USPS-supplied change-ofaddress information into their mailing
lists. Refer to the Guide to Move Update
available at www.postalpro.usps.com or
contact the National Customer Support
Center (see 608.8.1 for address) for
additional information.
*
*
*
*
*
We will publish an appropriate
amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect
these changes, if this proposal is
adopted.
5.2.2 Alternate Methods
Alternate Move Update methods are
as follows:
a. Green & Secure: Mailpieces using
the Green & Secure alternative method
will be excluded from the Address
Quality Census Measurement and
Assessment Process under 5.3. Details
are available in Publication 685,
Publication for Streamlined Mail
Acceptance for Letters and Flats,
available at www.postalpro.usps.com.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:00 Jan 08, 2018
Jkt 244001
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0416; FRL–9972–
76—Region 7]
Approval of Iowa’s Air Quality
Implementation Plan; Muscatine Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area;
Availability of Supplemental
Information and Reopening of the
Comment Period
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of
supplemental information and
reopening of the comment period.
AGENCY:
On August 24, 2017, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking to approve the Iowa State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for
attaining the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2)
primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for the Muscatine
nonattainment area (herein called a
‘‘nonattainment plan’’) in the Federal
Register. EPA received several
comments, including one suggesting
that insufficient information was
provided in the docket to allow the
reviewer the ability to fully evaluate the
nonattainment plan and EPA’s proposed
action to approve it and another
comment that insufficient emissions
inventory information for the 2018
attainment year was provided for the
action. As a result, we are: Providing
additional information in the docket
and clarifying that all information,
including files that are too large to be
provided in the docket, are available
upon request; providing an updated
SUMMARY:
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
2018 projected emissions inventory; and
reopening the public comment period to
afford stakeholders an opportunity to
comment on these specific additions of
information only. EPA has updated
Document A, ‘‘Index of Docket
Documents’’ in the docket to this
rulemaking. EPA will address all
comments received on the original
proposal and on this supplemental
action in our final action.
The comment period for the
proposed rule published on August 24,
2017 (82 FR 40086) (FRL–9966–60–
Region 7) is reopened. Comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–RO7–OAR–2017–0416
must be received on or before February
8, 2018.
DATES:
Submit your comments
pertaining to this supplemental action,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2017–0416 to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
ADDRESSES:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PO 00000
997
Sfmt 4702
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
(913) 551–7016, or by email at
casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section
provides additional information by
addressing the following:
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
998
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
I. What action is EPA taking?
On August 24, 2017, at 82 FR 40086,
EPA proposed to approve a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the state of Iowa for
attaining the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the
Muscatine nonattainment area. EPA
received several comments on the
original proposal, including one
suggesting that insufficient information
was provided in the docket to allow the
reviewer the ability to fully evaluate the
nonattainment plan and the basis of
EPA’s proposed action to approve it. As
a result, in this supplemental action,
EPA is providing additional information
in the docket for the proposed action
and clarifying that, especially in the
case of files too large to post in the
docket, this information is available
upon request. These large files include
modeling files utilized to support the
nonattainment plan. EPA also received
a comment that the SIP submittal, and
EPA’s proposed approval of the
nonattainment plan, did not include
adequate emissions inventory
information for the 2018 attainment
year. As a result, EPA is providing
updated 2018 projected emissions
inventory information for the proposed
action. EPA is soliciting comment only
regarding the information added by this
document and its relationship to EPA’s
proposed SIP approval. That is, at this
time, EPA is soliciting comment only on
the newly docketed information,
including modeling files which can be
obtained upon request, and how they
relate to EPA’s proposed action. We will
address all comments received on the
original proposal and new comments
submitted in response to this action in
our final rulemaking action.
II. What is the background for this
action?
As discussed in EPA’s original August
24, 2017, proposal (82 FR 40086), on
April 23, 2014, the EPA issued
recommended guidance for meeting the
statutory requirements in SO2 SIPs, in a
document entitled, ‘‘Guidance for
1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions,’’ (April 2014 guidance)
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2016-06/documents/
20140423guidance_nonattainment_
sip.pdf. In this guidance the EPA
described the statutory requirements for
a complete nonattainment area SIP,
which includes an accurate emissions
inventory of current emissions for all
sources of SO2 within the
nonattainment area.
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires
that the state’s nonattainment plan
include a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions
from all sources of the relevant
pollutant or pollutants in such area,
including such periodic revisions as the
Administrator may determine necessary
to assure that the requirements of part
D of title I of the CAA are met. Section
172(c)(4) of the CAA requires that the
state’s nonattainment plan expressly
identify and quantify the emissions, if
any, of any such pollutant or pollutants
which will be allowed, in accordance
with section 173(a)(1)(B) of the CAA,
from the construction and operation of
major new or modified stationary
sources in each such area. The plan
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that the emissions
quantified for this purpose will be
consistent with the achievement of
reasonable further progress and will not
interfere with attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.
The emissions inventory and source
emission rate data for an area serve as
the foundation for air quality modeling
and other analyses that enable states to:
(1) Estimate the degree to which
different sources within a
nonattainment area contribute to
violations within the affected area; and
(2) assess the expected improvement in
air quality within the nonattainment
area due to the adoption and
implementation of control measures. As
noted above, the state must develop and
submit to EPA a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of SO2
emissions in each nonattainment area,
as well as any sources located outside
the nonattainment area which may
affect attainment in the area. See the
April 2014 guidance.
The base year inventory establishes a
baseline that is used to evaluate
emissions reductions achieved by the
control strategy and to assess reasonable
further progress requirements. The
state’s nonattainment SIP noted that, at
the time, the most recent and available
triennial inventory year was 2011, and
the stated found that it served as a
suitable base year. Table 1 provides the
baseline 2011 SO2 emissions inventory
data for sources within and outside of
the nonattainment the area (data have
been rounded to the nearest whole
number). It is important to note that
emissions from the onroad mobile,
nonroad mobile, area source and fire
source categories are for the entire
Muscatine County and not just the
nonattainment area which is a portion
of the county. Emissions from these
source categories are approximately 0.11
percent of the total SO2 emissions for
the nonattainment area.
TABLE 1—2011 BASE LINE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR THE MUSCATINE, IA NONATTAINMENT AREA
Base line emissions inventory for the Muscatine NAA
2011 SO2
Emissions
(tpy)
Facility
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Inside of the NAA .......................................................................
Outside of the NAA ....................................................................
All of Muscatine County .............................................................
Total .....................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:00 Jan 08, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Grain Processing Corporation ....................................................
Muscatine Power and Water ......................................................
Monsanto ....................................................................................
HNI Corp.—North Campus .........................................................
HNI Corp.—Central Campus ......................................................
H.J. Heinz L.P ............................................................................
Union Tank Car Co ....................................................................
Louisa Generating Station ..........................................................
Onroad Mobile ............................................................................
Nonroad Mobile ..........................................................................
Area Sources ..............................................................................
Fires ............................................................................................
10,810
2,374
537
<1
<1
<1
<1
7,304
3
2
10
9
.....................................................................................................
21,049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
999
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Station (LGS) located in nearby Louisa
County (presented as a potential to emit
(PTE) level as provided by the state);
emissions from the less than 1 ton per
year (tpy) point sources that were
included in the baseline emission
inventory; and emissions from the area
source, fire, nonroad mobile, and
onroad mobile source categories. Tables
3 through 6 provide information on how
EPA completed the 2018 projections
from the area source, fire, nonroad
mobile, and onroad mobile source
categories as well as the less than 1 tpy
TABLE 2—PROJECTED 2018 ALLOW- point sources. A summary of the 2018
ABLE ANNUAL SO2 EMISSIONS FROM projected emissions inventory is
CONTROL
STRATEGY
SOURCES provided in table 7.
As with the state’s 2011 baseline
FROM THE NONATTAINMENT PLAN
emissions inventory, the fire, nonroad
mobile, onroad mobile and area source
Projected 2018 emissions for the controlled
emissions are county-wide and not
sources
specific to the partial Muscatine County
2018 SO2
nonattainment area. EPA increased the
Emissions
Facility
emissions based on population growth
(tpy)
factors. In order to complete these
projections, EPA first gathered
Grain Processing Corporation ....................................
167 population projections for Muscatine
Muscatine Power and Water
5,051 county, as seen in table 3.1
The state’s nonattainment SIP
provided a 2018 projected emissions
inventory only for the stationary sources
that would be controlled under the SIP
(Grain Processing Corporation,
Muscatine Power and Water and
Monsanto); the state’s 2018 projected
emissions are provided in table 2. As
noted in EPA’s proposal, the inventory
was developed assuming each SO2
source operates 8,760 hours per year at
its permitted maximum allowable
emission rate.
Monsanto ..............................
1,196
In this supplemental document, EPA
is providing an update to the state’s
2018 projected emissions inventory for
public inspection. The updated 2018
projected emissions inventory includes:
Emissions from Louisa Generating
TABLE 3—POPULATION GROWTH DATA
FOR MUSCATINE COUNTY—Continued
2020 ......................................
44,225
Next, EPA developed growth factors
by computing population ratios by
comparing the projected 2020
population to the 2010 population and
then comparing the 2020 population to
the 2015 population, as provided in
table 4.
TABLE 4—2018 GROWTH FACTORS
2018 Growth factors
1.03 .......................................
1.02 .......................................
2020/2010
2020/2015
Then, EPA downloaded the 2011 and
2014 emissions from the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) and
multiplied the NEI values by the growth
factors to calculate a 2018 maximum
projection value, as provided in table 5.
That is, EPA multiplied the 2011 NEI
base year emissions by the 2018 growth
TABLE 3—POPULATION GROWTH DATA factor of 1.03 and the 2014 NEI base
year emissions by the 2018 growth
FOR MUSCATINE COUNTY
factor of 1.02, then selected the highest
estimate for each source category as the
Population projections
2018 maximum projected emissions
2010 ......................................
42,760 (data have been rounded to the nearest
2015 ......................................
43,453 whole number).
TABLE 5—2018 SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS MUSCATINE COUNTY IOWA
[Tons]
2018 Sulfur dioxide emissions projections Muscatine County Iowa
(tons)
2011 a
Fire .......................................................................................
Area Sources .......................................................................
Nonroad Mobile c ..................................................................
Onroad Mobile .....................................................................
2018
(2011)
2014 b
9
10
2
3
13
5
1
4
2018
(2014)
9
10
2
3
2018
Maximum
13
5
1
4
13
10
2
4
a 2011NEIV2.
b 2014NEIV1.
c Marine/Aircraft/Rail
emissions were included in the nonroad category, rather than area source category for 2011.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
In order to project the 2018 emissions
for the less than 1 tpy sources provided
in the 2011 baseline emission inventory
(HNI Corporation—North and Central
Campuses, H.J. Heinz, L.P., and Union
Tank Car Co.—Muscatine), EPA selected
the highest emissions from the 2008 to
2015 time period as the sources’
projected 2018 emissions, table 6. The
total of the county’s nonroad mobile,
onroad moble, fire and area source
category projected 2018 emissions
would be about .13 percent of the partial
county nonattainment area’s total
emissions).2
1 https://www.iowadatacenter.org/
datatables/CountyAll/co2010population
projections20002040.pdf.
2 The total projected 2018 emissions includes
LGS at its projected PTS in 2018, 15,188. It is
expected that the actual emissions from this source
in 2018 would be much lower.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:00 Jan 08, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
1000
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—PROJECTED 2018 SO2 EMISSIONS FOR THE SMALL UNCONTROLLED SOURCES (TPY) IN THE MUSCATINE
COUNTY IOWA NONATTAINMENT AREA
Projected 2018 emissions from the less than 1 ton per year (tpy) sources in the Muscatine NAA
Facility name
2008
HNI Corporation—North Campus ...............
HNI Corporation—Central Campus ............
H.J. Heinz, L.P ............................................
Union Tank Car Co.—Muscatine ................
2009
0.06
0.04
0.06
0
Additionally, there is a large source
outside of the nonattainment area, LGS,
that was included in the state’s 2011
baseline emission inventory. On
October 12, 2017, the state submitted,
via email, the 2018 potential to emit
(PTE) from LGS equaling approximately
0.07
0.01
0.03
0.01
2010
2011
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.01
2012
0.07
0.01
0.05
0.01
2013
0.11
0.05
0.06
0.01
15,188 tpy. The email has been added
to the docket for public inspection.
Table 7 provides a summary of the
projected 2018 emissions for the
nonattainment area, and that summary
includes LGS at its PTE. However, after
reviewing LGS’s operating history from
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.01
2014
2018
Projected
2015
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.11
0.05
0.06
0.02
2012 to 2016 we expect that the facility
will emit considerably less SO2
emissions than its PTE in 2018. Table 8
provides the annual SO2 emissions from
LGS from 2012 to 2016 as reported to
EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division.3
TABLE 7—UPDATED 2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY
2018 Projected emissions inventory for the Muscatine NAA
2018 SO2
Emissions
(tpy)
Facility
Inside of the NAA .....................................
Outside of the NAA ...................................
All of Muscatine County ............................
Total ...................................................
Grain Processing Corporation ......................................................................................
Muscatine Power and Water ........................................................................................
Monsanto ......................................................................................................................
HNI Corp.—North Campus ..........................................................................................
HNI Corp.—Central Campus .......................................................................................
H.J. Heinz L.P ..............................................................................................................
Union Tank Car Co ......................................................................................................
Louisa Generating Station ...........................................................................................
Onroad Mobile ..............................................................................................................
Nonroad Mobile ............................................................................................................
Area Sources ...............................................................................................................
Fires .............................................................................................................................
167
5,051
1,196
0.11
0.05
0.06
0.02
15,188
4
2
10
13
.......................................................................................................................................
21,631
TABLE 8—LOUISA GENERATING STATION SO2 ANNUAL EMISSIONS DATA, 2012–2016 (CAMD)
Louisa Generating Station SO2 emissions, 2012–2016
Year
2012
Annual SO2 Emissions ........................................................
The EPA is providing the updated
2018 projected emissions inventory
information for public inspection and in
support of the Agency’s previous
proposal to determine that the state has
met the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(3) and 172(c)(4).
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
2013
8743
2014
8285
FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action
is not subject to review under Executive
Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP
approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866. This action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
2015
8763
15:00 Jan 08, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6096
5129
Administrator certifies that this
rulemaking will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). Because this rulemaking would
approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it 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).
3 Data reported to the CAMD shows that LGS has
not operated in a manner to allow for SO2 emissions
approaching its PTE (15,188) since 2008.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2016
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
1001
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action.
This action merely proposes to approve
a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
CAA. This rulemaking also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045,
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it proposes to approve a state
rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a state submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA when it reviews a state submission,
to use VCS in place of a state
submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the CAA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This action does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: December 21, 2017.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2018–00026 Filed 1–8–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0680; FRL–9972–
83—Region 9]
Approval of California Air Plan
Revisions, Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District (YSAQMD)
portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision concerns emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from
organic liquid storage and transfer
operations. We are proposing to approve
a local rule to regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act). We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
February 8, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2017–0680 at https://www.
regulations.gov, or via email to Rebecca
Newhouse, at newhouse.rebecca@
epa.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
removed or edited from Regulations.gov.
For either manner of submission, the
EPA may publish any comment received
SUMMARY:
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca Newhouse, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972–3004, newhouse.rebecca@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the rule revision?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
D. Proposed Action and Request for Public
Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this
proposal with the dates that it was
adopted by the local air agency and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE
Local agency
Rule No.
YSAQMD ..................................
2.21
On April 17, 2017, the EPA
determined that the submittal for
YSAQMD Rule 2.21 met the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:00 Jan 08, 2018
Jkt 244001
Amended/
revised
Rule title
Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer ...................................
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before
formal EPA review.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
09/14/16
Submitted
01/24/17
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
We approved an earlier version of
Rule 2.21 into the SIP on October 31,
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 997-1001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00026]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-9972-76--Region 7]
Approval of Iowa's Air Quality Implementation Plan; Muscatine
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area; Availability of Supplemental
Information and Reopening of the Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information and
reopening of the comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 24, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a notice of proposed rulemaking to approve the Iowa State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for attaining the 1-hour sulfur
dioxide (SO2) primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for the Muscatine nonattainment area (herein called a
``nonattainment plan'') in the Federal Register. EPA received several
comments, including one suggesting that insufficient information was
provided in the docket to allow the reviewer the ability to fully
evaluate the nonattainment plan and EPA's proposed action to approve it
and another comment that insufficient emissions inventory information
for the 2018 attainment year was provided for the action. As a result,
we are: Providing additional information in the docket and clarifying
that all information, including files that are too large to be provided
in the docket, are available upon request; providing an updated 2018
projected emissions inventory; and reopening the public comment period
to afford stakeholders an opportunity to comment on these specific
additions of information only. EPA has updated Document A, ``Index of
Docket Documents'' in the docket to this rulemaking. EPA will address
all comments received on the original proposal and on this supplemental
action in our final action.
DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published on August 24,
2017 (82 FR 40086) (FRL-9966-60-Region 7) is reopened. Comments,
identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-RO7-OAR-2017-0416
must be received on or before February 8, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments pertaining to this supplemental action,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
[[Page 998]]
I. What action is EPA taking?
On August 24, 2017, at 82 FR 40086, EPA proposed to approve a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the state of Iowa for
attaining the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the Muscatine
nonattainment area. EPA received several comments on the original
proposal, including one suggesting that insufficient information was
provided in the docket to allow the reviewer the ability to fully
evaluate the nonattainment plan and the basis of EPA's proposed action
to approve it. As a result, in this supplemental action, EPA is
providing additional information in the docket for the proposed action
and clarifying that, especially in the case of files too large to post
in the docket, this information is available upon request. These large
files include modeling files utilized to support the nonattainment
plan. EPA also received a comment that the SIP submittal, and EPA's
proposed approval of the nonattainment plan, did not include adequate
emissions inventory information for the 2018 attainment year. As a
result, EPA is providing updated 2018 projected emissions inventory
information for the proposed action. EPA is soliciting comment only
regarding the information added by this document and its relationship
to EPA's proposed SIP approval. That is, at this time, EPA is
soliciting comment only on the newly docketed information, including
modeling files which can be obtained upon request, and how they relate
to EPA's proposed action. We will address all comments received on the
original proposal and new comments submitted in response to this action
in our final rulemaking action.
II. What is the background for this action?
As discussed in EPA's original August 24, 2017, proposal (82 FR
40086), on April 23, 2014, the EPA issued recommended guidance for
meeting the statutory requirements in SO2 SIPs, in a
document entitled, ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment
Area SIP Submissions,'' (April 2014 guidance) available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf. In this guidance the EPA
described the statutory requirements for a complete nonattainment area
SIP, which includes an accurate emissions inventory of current
emissions for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment
area.
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that the state's
nonattainment plan include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory
of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or
pollutants in such area, including such periodic revisions as the
Administrator may determine necessary to assure that the requirements
of part D of title I of the CAA are met. Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA
requires that the state's nonattainment plan expressly identify and
quantify the emissions, if any, of any such pollutant or pollutants
which will be allowed, in accordance with section 173(a)(1)(B) of the
CAA, from the construction and operation of major new or modified
stationary sources in each such area. The plan shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that the emissions quantified for
this purpose will be consistent with the achievement of reasonable
further progress and will not interfere with attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area
serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses
that enable states to: (1) Estimate the degree to which different
sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the
affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality
within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of
control measures. As noted above, the state must develop and submit to
EPA a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions
from all sources of SO2 emissions in each nonattainment
area, as well as any sources located outside the nonattainment area
which may affect attainment in the area. See the April 2014 guidance.
The base year inventory establishes a baseline that is used to
evaluate emissions reductions achieved by the control strategy and to
assess reasonable further progress requirements. The state's
nonattainment SIP noted that, at the time, the most recent and
available triennial inventory year was 2011, and the stated found that
it served as a suitable base year. Table 1 provides the baseline 2011
SO2 emissions inventory data for sources within and outside
of the nonattainment the area (data have been rounded to the nearest
whole number). It is important to note that emissions from the onroad
mobile, nonroad mobile, area source and fire source categories are for
the entire Muscatine County and not just the nonattainment area which
is a portion of the county. Emissions from these source categories are
approximately 0.11 percent of the total SO2 emissions for
the nonattainment area.
Table 1--2011 Base Line Emission Inventory for the Muscatine, IA
Nonattainment Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base line emissions inventory for the Muscatine NAA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 SO2
Facility Emissions
(tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inside of the NAA................. Grain Processing 10,810
Corporation.
Muscatine Power and 2,374
Water.
Monsanto............ 537
HNI Corp.--North <1
Campus.
HNI Corp.--Central <1
Campus.
H.J. Heinz L.P...... <1
Union Tank Car Co... <1
Outside of the NAA................ Louisa Generating 7,304
Station.
All of Muscatine County........... Onroad Mobile....... 3
Nonroad Mobile...... 2
Area Sources........ 10
Fires............... 9
---------------
Total......................... .................... 21,049
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 999]]
The state's nonattainment SIP provided a 2018 projected emissions
inventory only for the stationary sources that would be controlled
under the SIP (Grain Processing Corporation, Muscatine Power and Water
and Monsanto); the state's 2018 projected emissions are provided in
table 2. As noted in EPA's proposal, the inventory was developed
assuming each SO2 source operates 8,760 hours per year at
its permitted maximum allowable emission rate.
Table 2--Projected 2018 Allowable Annual SO2 Emissions From Control
Strategy Sources From the Nonattainment Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 2018 emissions for the controlled sources
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 SO2
Facility Emissions
(tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain Processing Corporation............................ 167
Muscatine Power and Water............................... 5,051
Monsanto................................................ 1,196
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this supplemental document, EPA is providing an update to the
state's 2018 projected emissions inventory for public inspection. The
updated 2018 projected emissions inventory includes: Emissions from
Louisa Generating Station (LGS) located in nearby Louisa County
(presented as a potential to emit (PTE) level as provided by the
state); emissions from the less than 1 ton per year (tpy) point sources
that were included in the baseline emission inventory; and emissions
from the area source, fire, nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile source
categories. Tables 3 through 6 provide information on how EPA completed
the 2018 projections from the area source, fire, nonroad mobile, and
onroad mobile source categories as well as the less than 1 tpy point
sources. A summary of the 2018 projected emissions inventory is
provided in table 7.
As with the state's 2011 baseline emissions inventory, the fire,
nonroad mobile, onroad mobile and area source emissions are county-wide
and not specific to the partial Muscatine County nonattainment area.
EPA increased the emissions based on population growth factors. In
order to complete these projections, EPA first gathered population
projections for Muscatine county, as seen in table 3.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.iowadatacenter.org/datatables/CountyAll/co2010populationprojections20002040.pdf.
Table 3--Population Growth Data for Muscatine County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population projections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010.................................................... 42,760
2015.................................................... 43,453
2020.................................................... 44,225
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, EPA developed growth factors by computing population ratios
by comparing the projected 2020 population to the 2010 population and
then comparing the 2020 population to the 2015 population, as provided
in table 4.
Table 4--2018 Growth Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Growth factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.03.................................................... 2020/2010
1.02.................................................... 2020/2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, EPA downloaded the 2011 and 2014 emissions from the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) and multiplied the NEI values by the growth
factors to calculate a 2018 maximum projection value, as provided in
table 5. That is, EPA multiplied the 2011 NEI base year emissions by
the 2018 growth factor of 1.03 and the 2014 NEI base year emissions by
the 2018 growth factor of 1.02, then selected the highest estimate for
each source category as the 2018 maximum projected emissions (data have
been rounded to the nearest whole number).
Table 5--2018 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Projections Muscatine County Iowa
[Tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Sulfur dioxide emissions projections Muscatine County Iowa (tons)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 a 2014 b 2018 (2011) 2018 (2014) 2018 Maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire............................ 9 13 9 13 13
Area Sources.................... 10 5 10 5 10
Nonroad Mobile c................ 2 1 2 1 2
Onroad Mobile................... 3 4 3 4 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a 2011NEIV2.
b 2014NEIV1.
c Marine/Aircraft/Rail emissions were included in the nonroad category, rather than area source category for
2011.
In order to project the 2018 emissions for the less than 1 tpy
sources provided in the 2011 baseline emission inventory (HNI
Corporation--North and Central Campuses, H.J. Heinz, L.P., and Union
Tank Car Co.--Muscatine), EPA selected the highest emissions from the
2008 to 2015 time period as the sources' projected 2018 emissions,
table 6. The total of the county's nonroad mobile, onroad moble, fire
and area source category projected 2018 emissions would be about .13
percent of the partial county nonattainment area's total emissions).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The total projected 2018 emissions includes LGS at its
projected PTS in 2018, 15,188. It is expected that the actual
emissions from this source in 2018 would be much lower.
[[Page 1000]]
Table 6--Projected 2018 SO2 Emissions for the Small Uncontrolled Sources (tpy) in the Muscatine County Iowa Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 2018 emissions from the less than 1 ton per year (tpy) sources in the Muscatine NAA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018
Facility name 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Projected
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HNI Corporation--North Campus............... 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.11
HNI Corporation--Central Campus............. 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
H.J. Heinz, L.P............................. 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06
Union Tank Car Co.--Muscatine............... 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, there is a large source outside of the nonattainment
area, LGS, that was included in the state's 2011 baseline emission
inventory. On October 12, 2017, the state submitted, via email, the
2018 potential to emit (PTE) from LGS equaling approximately 15,188
tpy. The email has been added to the docket for public inspection.
Table 7 provides a summary of the projected 2018 emissions for the
nonattainment area, and that summary includes LGS at its PTE. However,
after reviewing LGS's operating history from 2012 to 2016 we expect
that the facility will emit considerably less SO2 emissions
than its PTE in 2018. Table 8 provides the annual SO2
emissions from LGS from 2012 to 2016 as reported to EPA's Clean Air
Markets Division.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Data reported to the CAMD shows that LGS has not operated in
a manner to allow for SO2 emissions approaching its PTE
(15,188) since 2008.
Table 7--Updated 2018 Emissions Inventory Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Projected emissions inventory for the Muscatine NAA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 SO2
Facility Emissions
(tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inside of the NAA.............. Grain Processing 167
Corporation.
Muscatine Power and 5,051
Water.
Monsanto............... 1,196
HNI Corp.--North Campus 0.11
HNI Corp.--Central 0.05
Campus.
H.J. Heinz L.P......... 0.06
Union Tank Car Co...... 0.02
Outside of the NAA............. Louisa Generating 15,188
Station.
All of Muscatine County........ Onroad Mobile.......... 4
Nonroad Mobile......... 2
Area Sources........... 10
Fires.................. 13
---------------
Total...................... ....................... 21,631
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--Louisa Generating Station SO2 Annual Emissions Data, 2012-2016 (CAMD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisa Generating Station SO2 emissions, 2012-2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual SO2 Emissions............ 8743 8285 8763 6096 5129
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is providing the updated 2018 projected emissions inventory
information for public inspection and in support of the Agency's
previous proposal to determine that the state has met the requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 172(c)(4).
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). This action is not subject to review under Executive
Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because
SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866. This action is
also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly,
the Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it 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).
[[Page 1001]]
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This
rulemaking also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: December 21, 2017.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2018-00026 Filed 1-8-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
