
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41424-41429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17235]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-1083; FRL-9434-7]


Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call 
for Iowa State Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
authority in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), section 110(k)(5), to call 
for plan revisions, EPA is making a finding that the Iowa State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) is substantially inadequate to maintain the 
2006 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Fine 
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) in Muscatine County, Iowa. The 
specific SIP deficiencies needing revision are described below. EPA is 
also finalizing

[[Page 41425]]

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 
this rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2010-1083. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information 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 http://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: Steven Brown at (913) 551-7718 or by 
e-mail at brown.steven@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 action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background of this action?
III. How can Iowa correct the inadequacy and when must the 
correction be submitted?
IV. What are EPA's comment responses?
V. What action is EPA taking?

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is finding that the Iowa SIP is substantially inadequate to 
maintain the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 in Muscatine 
County, Iowa. EPA is also finalizing a timeline for Iowa to revise its 
SIP to correct these deficiencies by a date no later than 18 months 
after the effective date of this rule. EPA proposed this rule on 
February 2, 2011 (76 FR 9706). EPA received comments from the State of 
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), the Iowa Environmental 
Council, and 15 Iowa citizens. A summary of these comments on the 
proposed rule and EPA's responses are found in Section IV. EPA's 
finding is based on complete, quality-assured, quality controlled and 
certified ambient monitoring data from the 2007-2009 monitoring period. 
Based on the 2010 monitoring data in Iowa's Certification Request, the 
Muscatine area continues to violate the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
standard based on the 2008-2010 monitoring data with a design value of 
37 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).

II. What is the background of this action?

    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 [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 and is based on the most recent three 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 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, Iowa, and is the 
only PM2.5 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 rulemaking. The 2007-2009 design value 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. 
The monitoring data in Iowa's Certification Request for 2010 indicates 
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 design value 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

[[Page 41426]]

 
2008-2010....................................................         37
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 standard, based upon 2007-2009 data, and 
have shown violations of the standard in the past (based upon 2005-2007 
data), EPA has determined that the SIP is substantially inadequate to 
maintain the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 in this area. EPA 
received no comments on the monitoring data or proposed finding of 
substantial inadequacy. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing the proposed 
action and Iowa must revise the SIP as described herein.

III. How can the State correct the inadequacy and when must the 
correction be submitted?

    The State must submit several specific plan elements to EPA in 
order to correct the inadequacy of the SIP identified 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 standard, however, EPA finds 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, and as 
discussed in the February 2, 2011, proposed SIP Call. (76 FR 9706), EPA 
is requiring 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.
    Consistent with the February 2, 2011, proposal, 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 this final SIP Call. EPA believes that this 
schedule is reasonable, because IDNR 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 98th 
percentile value for the calendar year after the necessary controls are 
implemented should be at or below the 24-hour PM2.5 
standard. Contingency measures will be triggered if that value is above 
the standard in the calendar year after the implementation of controls 
necessary for attainment, or in any subsequent year. The SIP revision 
must 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.
    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 
is requiring the submittal within 18 months following the final finding 
of substantial inadequacy. The 18-month period begins on the effective 
date of this rule.
    This rule requires 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 expeditiously as practicable based upon implementation 
of Federal, State and local measures. As discussed previously, we 
expect that the date for attainment (for the purpose of this rule, the 
date by which the 98th percentile 24 hour PM2.5 value must 
be at or below 35 [mu]g/m\3\) will be the first full calendar year 
following the required implementation of controls. In this case, the 
date will be the first full calendar year which begins after the two 
year anniversary of the effective date of this rule. EPA will establish 
a specific date for attainment at the same time it takes final action 
on the State's implementation plan revision in response to this final 
SIP Call. 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 show those PM2.5 
concentrations are at or below the levels of the 2006 24-hour standard.

IV. What is EPA's response to comments?

    As stated above, on February 22, 2011, EPA proposed to find that 
the Iowa SIP was substantially inadequate to maintain the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 9106). EPA received 17 comments on the 
proposed rule. We note that all of the comments related to the proposed 
remedy (the timing and content of the SIP to be required as a result of 
the SIP call). EPA received no comments on the underlying proposed 
finding of substantial inadequacy and we are finalizing that finding on 
the basis of the rationale stated in EPA's February 2, 2011, proposal 
and in section II, above. Below we set forth a summary of the comments 
regarding the proposed remedy and EPA's responses:
    Comment 1: Fifteen citizens commented that the new SIP should be 
completed in less than 18 months.
    Response: The CAA section 110(k)(5) requires that whenever the 
Administrator finds that the applicable implementation plan for any 
area is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the relevant 
NAAQS, the Administrator shall require the state to revise the plan as 
necessary to correct such inadequacies. The Administrator shall notify 
the state of the inadequacies and may establish reasonable deadlines 
(not to exceed 18 months after the date of such notice) for the 
submission of such plan revisions. EPA believes the 18 month deadline 
for Iowa to submit its revised SIP is appropriate.

[[Page 41427]]

    In order to revise the SIP, the State must conduct modeling; 
analyze the modeling; and determine what emission reductions are needed 
and the appropriate emission controls to achieve those reductions. The 
rulemaking process includes the opportunity for the public to comment 
on the proposed SIP revisions, including the proposed emission 
controls, at the State level. Once the public has been given adequate 
opportunity to submit comments, the State must respond to those 
comments, finalize its plan, and then submit it to EPA for review and 
approval. In order to have a complete submittal for EPA review, the 
State must ensure EPA that all of the requirements in 40 CFR part 51, 
Appendix V are met, including for example, a control strategy 
demonstration with adequate justification which has been fully vetted 
through the public process.
    As described above, the process for developing and finalizing the 
State's plan can take a significant amount of time, much of which is 
used to allow the public (as well as affected sources) time to comment 
on the proposal. Therefore, EPA has determined that the 18 month 
timeframe is reasonable for submission of the plan.
    Comment 2: Fourteen citizens commented that the adopted measures to 
achieve reductions determined necessary to attain and maintain the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS should be implemented in less than two 
years.
    Response: As stated in the response to Comment 1, section 110(k)(5) 
of the CAA requires the State to submit a revised SIP to EPA within 18 
months of the date of this action, and EPA has determined that the 18 
month deadline is reasonable for submission of the SIP. If, as 
anticipated, IDNR cannot complete the SIP sooner than 18 months after 
this final action, sources would then be required to implement controls 
within 6 months after the revised SIP has been developed and submitted. 
As discussed above, the State and affected sources will not know which 
specific controls will be required until the SIP has gone through the 
State rulemaking process, including opportunity for public comment. 
Depending on the nature of the final controls selected, it may not be 
reasonable to establish a deadline shorter than two years after EPA 
promulgates the final SIP call rule. In the proposal EPA stated that 
this two year deadline is an outside date, and that compliance with the 
control strategy necessary to achieve the standard should be as 
expeditious as practicable, but no later than that date. If, during the 
SIP development process, the State or EPA determines that compliance 
can be achieved earlier than the two year outside date, then compliance 
would be required by the earlier date. Therefore, EPA has determined 
that this deadline is reasonable.
    Comment 3: Two citizens commented regarding the health effects of 
high levels of air pollution in Muscatine. One commenter states that 
Muscatine residents experience high incidences of lung disease, cardiac 
problems, renal and other serious life threatening illnesses, as well 
as death that may be caused by ``air toxicants'' including 
PM2.5 and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
    Response: EPA acknowledges the health effects of high levels of 
PM2.5 and SO2. The adverse health effects of the 
high concentrations of these pollutants are the primary considerations 
EPA takes into account when setting the NAAQS levels. The primary NAAQS 
levels are intended to be protective of human health. EPA has 
determined that the Muscatine area is not meeting the current 24-hour 
NAAQS for PM2.5 and, therefore, the current level of air 
quality is not protective of human health. This action will help ensure 
that the Muscatine area air quality returns to levels of 
PM2.5 concentrations that are protective of human health.
    EPA is also addressing air quality issues related to SO2 
through the new NAAQS standard promulgated on June 22, 2010, by EPA (72 
FR 35520). The attainment status of the Muscatine area with respect to 
the SO2 one-hour NAAQS is yet to be determined. 
Nonattainment areas will be required to develop plans addressing the 
CAA nonattainment area requirements for SO2. In the preamble 
to the rule, EPA also describes how most areas not designated as 
nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS will be required to develop 
a plan to maintain the standard (72 FR 35520, 35552-35554). Therefore, 
the State will also need to address SO2 emissions in the 
Muscatine area in implementing the applicable requirements for the 
SO2 NAAQS.
    Comment 4: Two citizens commented on the emissions seen at or near 
Grain Processing Corporation (GPC). A commenter stated that residents 
who live near GPC must either stay indoors or be exposed to air 
pollutants when the boilers are fired.
    Response: As a result of this action, IDNR is required to submit a 
SIP that will demonstrate how the Muscatine area will reach attainment 
of the health-based PM2.5 NAAQS. As part of the SIP 
development, Iowa will conduct an analysis of the sources contributing 
to exceedances of the standard, which will include GPC. The State will 
require emissions reductions from contributing sources sufficient to 
bring the area back into attainment with the health-based PM NAAQS. 
Further opportunity for public review of the State's plan will be 
provided by the State and EPA.
    Comment 5: One citizen commented on the exceedances of the ambient 
air monitors at the Garfield monitor noting ongoing exceedances of the 
standard.
    Response: As explained in Section II, EPA has analyzed the 
historical and current monitoring data and has reached the conclusion 
that the area is not achieving the standard. EPA agrees that the 
Garfield monitor has shown exceedances of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard. EPA is taking this action to address the 
resulting violations of the NAAQS to bring the Muscatine area into 
attainment.
    Comment 6: IDNR commented that EPA should be more flexible 
regarding the modeling demonstration required as part of the SIP. IDNR 
stated that the modeling requirement for this SIP call should allow for 
the use of the modeling protocol developed by Iowa as well as future 
EPA guidance and procedures that may not be part of Appendix W.
    Response: The proposed rule states that the modeling demonstration 
should be consistent with Appendix W. EPA does not read this language 
as precluding the use of Iowa's modeling protocol and any future 
guidance. Appendix W provides the guidelines to establish the modeling 
protocol and specifically allows for the use of alternative models. 40 
CFR part 51, Appendix W, Section 3.2. EPA will approve the use of 
alternatives if appropriate and adequately justified. Any future 
guidance will be addressed at the time it is issued.
    Comment 7: IDNR commented that it is not 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. Further, IDNR commented that the determination that the 
attainment date has been met should be based on data representative of 
conditions after the implementation of controls. IDNR also commented 
that the attainment date should be determined within two years 
following the implementation of controls and should be assessed using 
the 98th percentile concentrations. IDNR stated that if the 98th 
percentile concentrations for the first and second calendar years after 
controls are implemented are below the level of the NAAQS, a deferment 
or extension of the attainment date should occur, even if the design 
value is over the standard.

[[Page 41428]]

    Response: EPA believes it is reasonable to expect the monitored 
values in the area to be below the level of the NAAQS in the year after 
installation of controls. IDNR has already done a substantial analysis 
of air quality and the sources that contribute to the PM2.5 
problems in the area. The modeling should identify all of the emissions 
reductions which are necessary to attain the standard. The SIP should 
also identify the controls which will result in the required emissions 
reductions. As discussed in Section III, above, the date for 
implementation of controls should be two years after the effective date 
of this final rule (in 2013), and the date for attainment will be the 
first full calendar year following the required implementation of 
controls, i.e. 2014. For clarification, the calculation of this value 
would only consider the air quality data in the calendar year after the 
controls are fully implemented, and thus would not include the data 
from the previous two years (prior to controls, i.e. 2012 and 2013). In 
other words, in the year after implementation of controls (2014), the 
98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations should be equal to or less 
than 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
    This action is a SIP Call under section 110(k)(5). The area has not 
yet been designated as nonattainment and therefore, there is no 
statutory process for extending the ``attainment date.'' Through this 
action, EPA is setting forth a date by which the area must meet the 
NAAQS standard.
    Comment 8: IDNR commented that because Muscatine is not currently 
designated as a nonattainment area, therefore, it is not clear why 
contingency measures analogous to those specified in CAA section 
175A(d) are appropriate for the area.
    Response: Although this area is not designated as a nonattainment 
area, the area currently is not attaining the NAAQS, and appears in the 
past to have gone in and out of attainment. EPA is taking this action 
to call for a SIP which includes a control strategy to ensure that the 
area attains and then continues to maintain the standard. To ensure 
that the area continues to maintain the standard in the future, EPA has 
concluded that the State must develop contingency measures which would 
address any future violations after the control strategy to achieve 
attainment has been successfully implemented. The proposed rule states 
that the SIP submission must contain an enforceable commitment to adopt 
and implement sufficient contingency measures, once triggered (i.e., 
once the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations for a particular 
year exceeds 35 [micro]g/m\3\), in an expeditious and timely fashion 
that is comparable and analogous to requirements for contingency 
measures in CAA section 175A(d). EPA did not state or intend to imply 
that section 175A(d) is literally applicable to the Muscatine area, but 
rather provided that IDNR follow 175A(d) as a guide for developing and 
implementing its contingency measures. Contrary to commenter's 
contention, section 175A(d) contingency measures are not designed for 
implementation in nonattainment areas, but rather for implementation 
after areas have been redesignated to attainment. In other contexts as 
well, EPA has looked to section 175A as a guide for attainment area 
maintenance plan contingency measures. For example, EPA used section 
175A(d) as a model for maintenance plan contingency measures for 
certain areas designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 
see Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman to Air Division Directors, 
Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under 
Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act, May 20, 2005 and attainment area 
section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans following this guidance. Thus EPA's 
invocation of section 175A(d) with respect to the Muscatine area is 
consistent with the purpose of that section and EPA's past practice. 
EPA did not receive comments on whether any additional contingency 
measure triggers would be appropriate, or whether contingency measures 
should be adopted in advance and implemented automatically once 
triggered. Therefore, EPA is adopting its proposed approach and 
requiring that the SIP submission include contingency measures using 
175A(d) as a guide in developing the measures. The specific 
requirements for contingency measures for this plan are described in 
section III, above.
    Comment 9: The Iowa Environmental Council (IEC) commented that EPA 
should issue its final SIP call at the earliest possible date so that 
corrective actions can be put into practice quickly. IEC also commented 
on the health effects of high levels of PM2.5 in the 
Muscatine area. Finally, the commenter stated that it is imperative 
that IDNR assure that Muscatine reduces its PM2.5 
concentrations and prove that these reductions can at last be 
maintained in the long run.
    Response: See responses to comments 1, 3, and 8 above.

V. What actions is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking the following actions relating to the Iowa SIP for 
PM2.5 for Muscatine County. EPA:
    1. Finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate to maintain the 
NAAQS for 24-hour PM2.5 in the area;
    2. Requires 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 EPA's February 2, 2011, proposal;
    3. Requires the State to submit revisions to the SIP within 18 
months of the effective date of this rule;
    4. Requires 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 this rule;
    5. Requires that the SIP provide for attainment and maintenance of 
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Muscatine County, Iowa 
area as expeditiously as practicable, beginning (as described in 
response to Comment 7) no later than the calendar year after the 
implementation of controls necessary for attainment (two years after 
the effective date of this rule).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 rule:
     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

[[Page 41429]]

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 CAA; 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by September 12, 2011. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

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, Incorporation by 
reference, Iowa, Particulate matter, State implementation plan.

    Dated: June 28, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-17235 Filed 7-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


