[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11974-11990]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4684]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0150, FRL-9638-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
limited approval of a revision to the Iowa State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of Iowa on March 25, 2008, that addresses
regional haze for the first implementation period. This revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and
the EPA's rules that require States to prevent any future and remedy
any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class
I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional
haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in
Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision
to implement the regional haze requirements for Iowa on the basis that
the revision, as a whole, strengthens the Iowa SIP. In a separate
action, EPA previously proposed a limited disapproval of the Iowa
regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze
SIP arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR). Therefore, we are not taking action in this notice to
address the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2012-0150, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
    4. Mail: Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101; attention: Chrissy Wolfersberger.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Air Planning and Development Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy Wolfersberger. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No.: EPA-R07-OAR-
2012-0150. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 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. For additional information about the EPA's
public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    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., 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
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Planning and Development Branch, EPA Region 7 Office, 901 N 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. You may view the hard copy of the
docket

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Chrissy Wolfersberger at 901 N 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the RHR
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
    G. Monitoring Strategy
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state of Iowa's submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility
Conditions
    C. Reasonable Progress Goals
    D. Long-term Strategy
    E. Consultation with Other States
    F. BART
    i. BART Eligible Sources
    ii. BART Subject Sources
    1. Non-EGUs (Electric Generating Units)
    2. EGU BART Evaluation for Particulate Matter (PM)
    G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
    H. Monitoring Strategy
    I. Emissions Inventory
    J. Reporting Requirements
    K. Consultation With FLMs
    L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. Proposed Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of Iowa's March 25, 2008, SIP
revision addressing regional haze under CAA sections 301(a) and
110(k)(6) because the revision as a whole strengthens the Iowa SIP.\1\
This proposed rulemaking and the accompanying Technical Support
Document (TSD) explain the basis for EPA's proposed limited approval
action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and the EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the
entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient, and
prevent the EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision.
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
    \2\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled, ``Technical Support
Document for Iowa Regional Haze Submittal,'' is included in the
public docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the
Iowa regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional
haze SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet
certain regional haze requirements. 76 FR 82219. We are not proposing
to take action in today's rulemaking on issues associated with Iowa's
reliance on CAIR in its regional haze SIP. Comments on our proposed
limited disapproval of Iowa's regional haze SIP may be directed to the
docket for that rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)).
Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine
particulate matter which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing
light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible
distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious
health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR
35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress set
forth a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national
parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a
national goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Federal Class I areas
\4\ in which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On
December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a
single source or small group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably
attributable visibility impairment'' (45 FR 80084). These regulations
represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment; EPA
deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of
sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the
relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were
improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with Section 169A of the CAA, the EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate additional areas
as Class I areas, which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress added section 169B to
focus attention on regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to
address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into

the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the Federal visibility protection regulations
at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized in Section III of this preamble. The
requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 States, the
District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires
States to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among States, tribal governments and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, States need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, the EPA has
encouraged the States and tribes across the United States to address
visibility impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze
and related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their States and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of PM and other pollutants leading to
regional haze.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations
require States to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) \5\ as the principal metric
or unit for expressing visibility. Visibility expressed in deciviews is
determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light
extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a
logarithm function. The dv is a more useful measure for tracking
progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because
each dv change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived
by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
dv.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A deciview is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as ``a haze index
derived from calculated light extinction, such that uniform changes
in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception
across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to highly
impaired.''
    \6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dv is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim visibility
goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline,
current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility.
The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure ``reasonable
progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and remedying
visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air
pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze.
The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e.,
anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair
visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, States must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years midway through each ten-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires States to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, States must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to States regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, States are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the States that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR
does not mandate specific milestones or rates

of progress, but instead calls for States to establish goals that
provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e.,
``background'') visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, States must
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days
over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same
period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in the EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program,
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to the EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-
2, 5-1). In setting the RPGs, States must also consider the rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'')
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the ten-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress which States are to use for analytical comparison to the
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each State
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I State'') must also consult
with potentially ``contributing States,'' i.e., other nearby States
with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at
the Class I State's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs States to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires States
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the State.
Under the RHR, States are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, States also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
States in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts, a State must use the approach set forth in
the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but not required, to follow
the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of
sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that States should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The State must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the State should not be higher than 0.5 dv.
    In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA's approval of the regional
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the
source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows States to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, the EPA made just such a
demonstration for CAIR. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations
provide that States participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program
under 40 CFR Part 96 pursuant to the EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which
remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR
Part 97 need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install,
operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and
NOX. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not address
direct emissions of PM, States were still required to conduct a BART
analysis for PM

emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant.
    Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted in the remand of the rule to
EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). EPA
issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport of
NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States. See 76
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the Transport Rule,'' also known as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to
find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve
greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART
in the States in which the Transport Rule applies. 76 FR 82219. Based
on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to allow
States to substitute participation in the trading programs under the
Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not taken final action
on that rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit issued an order
addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in response to
motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule
pending judicial review. In that order, the DC Circuit stayed the
Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the petitions for
review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302
and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected
to continue to administer the CAIR in the interim until the court rules
on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
States include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that States include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a State will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected
by emissions from, the State. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a State's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another State, the RHR requires the impacted State to coordinate with
the contributing States in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing State must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP,
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between States may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two States
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, States must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment Long-Term Strategy

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c), regarding the LTS
for RAVI, to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the State's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b)
and (c). The State must revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze on
or before this date. The State must also submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated
LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress toward RPGs,
must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and
periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g),
respectively. The periodic review of a State's LTS must be submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision and report on both regional haze and RAVI
impairment.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) includes the requirement for a monitoring
strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be coordinated with
the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance
with this requirement may be met through ``participation'' in the
IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data from the
network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze
SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy
must also provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE
network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the State, and
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A State must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every
ten years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The

requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that States consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least sixty days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
Further, a State must include in its SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and
FLMs regarding the State's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State of Iowa's submittal?

    EPA believes that the State has met the requirements of the CAA
sections 110(l) and 110(a)(2) which require that the State adopt a SIP
after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA also believes that the
State has met the requirements of the specific procedural requirements
for SIP revisions promulgated at 40 CFR Part 51, subpart F. These
requirements include publication of notices by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area of a public hearing on proposed
revisions, at least a 30-day public comment period, and the opportunity
for a public hearing, and that the State, in accordance with its laws,
submit the revision to EPA for approval. Specific information on Iowa's
rulemaking, regional haze SIP development and the public information
process is included in Chapter 2, and Appendix 2.1, of the State of
Iowa's regional haze SIP, which is included in the docket of this
proposed rulemaking.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    There are no Class I areas hosted by the State of Iowa, and no
portion of land within the State of Iowa is within 300 kilometers (km)
of a Class I area. However, States without Class I areas are still
required to submit SIPs that address the apportionment of visibility
impact from the emissions generated by sources within the State's
borders at Class I areas hosted by other States.
    The State of Iowa participated in the planning efforts of the
CENRAP which is affiliated with the Central States Air Resource
Agencies (CENSARA). This RPO includes nine States--Nebraska, Iowa,
Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
CENRAP and its contractors provided air quality modeling to the States
to help them determine whether sources located within the State can be
reasonably expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in
a Class I area. The modeling conducted relied on baseline year (2002)
and future planning year (2018) emissions inventories that were
prepared with participation from each of the CENRAP States.
    The State of Iowa relied upon the regional modeling work performed
by CENRAP for determining the impact that sources within the State
might have on Class I areas in the region and beyond. The modeling was
based on PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) for the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) photochemical
model. A detailed description of the source apportionment methods
utilized by CENRAP is available in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP.
    The following Class I areas were evaluated for contribution by the
State of Iowa:
     Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota (BOWA).
     Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota (VOYA).
     Seney Wilderness Area, Michigan (SENE).
     Isle Royale National Park, Michigan (ISLE).
     Hercules Glades Wilderness Area, Missouri (HEGL).
     Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri (MING).
     Caney Creek Wilderness, Arkansas (CACR).
     Upper Buffalo Wilderness, Arkansas (UPBU).
     Badlands National Park, South Dakota (BADL).
     Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota (WICA).
    BOWA, VOYA, SENE and ISLE are known as the Northern Midwest Class I
areas. According to the CENRAP PSAT results, the combined effect of all
Iowa emissions upon the total modeled visibility impairment at the four
Northern Midwest Class I areas is approximately 4 to 5 percent in both
2002 and 2018. The data were calculated in accordance with the new
IMPROVE equation and are representative of those days with the worst 20
percent visibility conditions.

  Table 1--Percent Contribution of Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan to Visibility Impairment at the Northern Midwest Class I Areas, 20 Percent Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Iowa                          Minnesota                       Michigan
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2002            2018            2002            2018            2002            2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Waters.........................................             3.7             3.9            25.6            28.5             2.3             2.7
Voyagers................................................             3.8             4.0            29.1            30.4             1.4             1.6
Isle Royale.............................................             4.5             4.9            11.5            12.5            11.1            12.8
Seney...................................................             4.2             4.8             3.9             4.4             9.6            12.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PSAT results provided above are in terms of percentages of
total visibility impairment. The State of Iowa found them useful for
determining the proportion of the State's contribution in relation to
the total modeled visibility impairment at a Class I area. However,
characterizing visibility impairment using just percentages can fail to
identify the magnitude of the contribution. For example, Iowa's percent
contributions increase between 2002 and 2018, but the actual light
extinction values decrease between the same years.

         Table 2--Iowa's Absolute Contribution to Visibility Impairment, Northern Midwest Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Worst 20 percent days modeled extinction (Mm-1)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Iowa                     Class I area total
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2002            2018            2002            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Waters.................................            2.39            2.08           64.87           53.44
Voyagers........................................            2.60            1.97           56.45           48.84
Isle Royale.....................................            3.23            3.02           71.40           61.26
Seney...........................................            4.54            3.95          107.92           82.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Iowa's contributions to visibility impairment, as calculated
through light extinction using the new IMPROVE equation, are provided
in Table 2. The total modeled visibility impairment for each Class I
area are also shown in the table. Iowa emissions sources cumulatively
contribute only 2.2-4.5 Mm-1 of the 56-107 Mm-1 total modeled
visibility impairment at the Northern Midwest Class I areas in 2002. In
tandem, Iowa's percentage and absolute contributions describe the
impacts emissions sources in Iowa may have upon nearby Class I areas.
    Another way to assess Iowa's contribution to visibility impairment
is to use the dv metric. As shown by Table 3, modeling results show
that visibility improvements resulting from the elimination of all Iowa
sources yield impacts below 0.5 dv.

       Table 3--Estimated 2018 Level of Visibility Impairment in the Absence of All Iowa Emissions Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            2018 Worst 20%
                                                        2018 Worst 20%        less Iowa's      Iowa's visibility
                                                             (dv)          contribution (dv)    & impacts (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Waters.....................................                18.5                18.1                 0.4
Voyagers............................................                17.7                17.4                 0.3
Isle Royale.........................................                19.6                19.2                 0.4
Seney...............................................                22.2                21.8                 0.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State determined that when considered collectively, the data in
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show that Iowa sources were responsible for a
minimal contribution to visibility impairment at the Northern Midwest
Class I areas.
    Iowa's contributions to the Arkansas and Missouri Class I areas
(HEGL, UPBU, CACR, MING) in terms of percentage contribution to
visibility extension were less than to the Northern Midwest Class I
areas. PSAT analysis showed that Iowa sources contributed approximately
1.6-2.7 percent to the total visibility extinction on the 20 percent
worst visibility days in 2018 at these Class I areas.
    PSAT analysis showed that Iowa sources contributed approximately
1.6 percent to the total visibility extinction on the 20 percent worst
visibility days in 2018 at the BADL and approximately 1.2 percent to
the total visibility extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days
in 2018 at the Wind Cave National Park, an impact which Iowa determined
to be insignificant.
    EPA believes the State of Iowa adequately identified the Class I
areas impacted by emissions from Iowa sources and the State adequately
determined the apportionment of those pollutants from sources located
within the State.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

    States that host Class I areas are required to estimate the
baseline, natural and current visibility conditions of those Class I
areas. As Iowa does not host a Class I area, it is not required to
estimate these metrics.

C. Reasonable Progress Goals

    States hosting Class I areas have established RPGs, and have made
assessments regarding whether emission reductions are needed from
sources in Iowa in order to meet their RPG. This consultation is
described in Section IV. E of this rulemaking. EPA is proposing to
determine that the State has met the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(iii) of the RHR.

D. Long-Term Strategy

    As discussed in greater detail in section IV. I. of this proposed
rulemaking, the emissions inventory used in the State's regional haze
technical analyses was developed by CENRAP. The 2018 emissions
inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and applying
reductions expected from Federal and State regulations affecting the
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. The emissions inventory
for Iowa projects changes to point, area and mobile source inventories
by the end of the first implementation period resulting from population
growth, industrial, energy and natural resources development, land
management, and air pollution control.
    There are many Federal and State control programs being implemented
that the State of Iowa anticipates will reduce emissions between the
end of the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these
control programs are included in the modeling analysis and are
projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement by 2018 in the
CENRAP and MRPO Class I areas. Iowa considered the minor and major new
source review programs (NSR), nonattainment new source review programs
(NNSR), prevention of significant deterioration permits (PSD), CAIR,
the heavy duty highway diesel rule, the clean air non-road diesel rule,
other on-road and non-road mobile source programs, operating permits,
pertinent new source performance standards (NSPS), national emissions
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), associated maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards, and Integrated Planning
Model (IPM) \8\ results in developing its long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/index.html.

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

    In a separate notice proposing limited disapproval of the regional
haze SIPs of a number of States, including Iowa, EPA noted that these
States relied on the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirement and the requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the
State-adopted reasonable progress goals. (76 FR 82219, December 30,
2011). In that notice, we proposed a limited disapproval of Iowa's LTS
insofar as it relied on CAIR. For that reason, we are not taking action
on that aspect of the long-term strategy in this notice. Comments on
that proposed determination may be directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0729.
    In order to mitigate the impact of construction activities, the
State of Iowa's rule on fugitive dust (567 IAC 23.3(2)``c'') states
that reasonable precautions shall be taken to prevent the discharge of
visible emissions of airborne dust beyond the lot line of the property
from which the emissions originated. The State also requires minor NSR
permits for aggregate processing plants, concrete batch plants, and
asphalt plants. Portable aggregate, concrete, or asphalt plants must
notify the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) thirty days
before transferring the equipment to a new location to allow for review
of the emissions impacts on national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The IDNR would notify the portable plant if there are
potential adverse impacts on the NAAQS. A more stringent emission
standard and the installation of additional control equipment would be
required if the relocation would prevent the attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS. Iowa determined that no additional measures were needed
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities for purposes of
visibility improvement, and EPA agrees with this determination.
    Iowa demonstrated that source retirement and replacement schedules
were taken into account, to the extent possible, when developing inputs
for the IPM that was used in the CENRAP modeling analysis.
    Iowa does not have a smoke management program at this time. Iowa
notes that the CENRAP PSAT modeling indicates that fires in Iowa do not
significantly contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas, and
therefore believes that a smoke management program is not needed for
purposes of visibility improvement at this time.
    The State has determined, and the EPA agrees, that the
implementation of the on the books and on the way controls mentioned
above are the control measures necessary for the State to achieve its
apportionment of emission reductions agreed upon through the
consultation process (discussed in greater detail below and in Section
IV.E of this proposed rulemaking) as required by 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).

E. Consultation With Other States

    Iowa participated with the central consultation group, a subset of
the CENRAP. This group was coordinated by the States of Missouri and
Arkansas. Other participants include Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Oklahoma,
Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, FLMs, other RPOs, and tribes. In addition
to participation in the CENRAP regional planning process, the SIP
indicates that Iowa also participated in the Midwest Class I area
consultation group, coordinated by the States of Minnesota and
Michigan, which included participation from the States of Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, as well as Tribal lands in the
five States that are part of the Midwest Planning Organization (MRPO).
    In a letter dated July 23, 2007,\9\ the central consultation group
determined that additional reductions beyond existing and proposed
controls, through both State and Federal requirements, would not be
necessary from the State of Iowa in order for the uniform rate of
progress to be met at each of the Class I areas in the States of
Missouri and Arkansas (HEGL, MING, CACR, and the UPBU). EPA believes
that this satisfies the requirement for consultation between these
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ State consultation letters are provided in Appendix 10 of
the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Iowa communicated directly with the State of South Dakota, via
letters dated May 31, 2007, and June 18, 2007, regarding visibility
impacts at Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks. The State of South
Dakota asked the State of Iowa for any analysis that it conducted to
determine impacts, if any, sources in Iowa may have on the South Dakota
Class I areas. The State of Iowa responded that source PSAT analysis
was available on the CENRAP Web site titled ``PSAT Viz Tool 27-April
2007.'' Iowa explained the analysis showed that sources in the State of
Iowa contributed approximately 1.6 percent to the total visibility
extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days in 2018 at Badlands
and approximately 1.2 percent to the total visibility extinction on the
20 percent worst visibility days in 2018 at Wind Cave, which Iowa
considered to be an insignificant contribution. The State of Iowa did
not receive a response or request for additional information from the
State of South Dakota. EPA believes that this satisfies the requirement
for consultation between these two States.
    The State of Iowa also communicated directly with the State of
Oklahoma regarding potential visibility impacts of Iowa sources on the
Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. In a letter dated February 25, 2008,
the State of Oklahoma invited States that had a projected contribution
of at least 1 Mm-1 in 2018 visibility impact at Wichita Mountains to
participate in its consultation process. The letter goes on to
determine that, after evaluation, in the 2018 modeling projections for
the 20 percent worst visibility days at Wichita Mountains,
anthropogenic emissions from the sources in the State of Iowa were not
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at
Wichita Mountains and that the State of Oklahoma was not requesting
that the State of Iowa consider additional emission reductions. EPA
believes that this satisfies the requirement for consultation between
these two States.
    In a letter dated September 19, 2007, the State of Minnesota
determined that the State of Iowa (among other States), was a
significant contributor to visibility impairment at Voyageurs National
Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Attachments provided
with the letter indicated that the State of Minnesota utilized Lake
Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) trajectory analysis and
CENRAP PSAT analysis (for baseline years) to determine if a State
contributed 5 percent or more to visibility impairment at the two
Minnesota Class I areas. A contribution of 5 percent was considered by
the State of Minnesota to be significant. The LADCO trajectory analysis
estimated contributions from emissions from the State of Iowa to be
approximately 7.4 percent at Boundary Waters and approximately 10.2
percent at Voyageurs. The CENRAP PSAT modeling estimated contributions
from emissions from the State of Iowa to be approximately 3.5 percent
at Boundary Waters and approximately 3.8 percent at Voyageurs.
    In its letter, the State of Minnesota asked the State of Iowa to:
``* * * evaluate further reductions of SO2 from electric
generating units (EGU) in order to reduce SO2 emissions by
2018 to a rate that is more comparable to the emissions rate projected
for 2018 for EGU sources in Minnesota, approximately 0.25 lbs/MMBtu.''
The State of Minnesota also asked the State of Iowa to make a
commitment to

review, by 2013, the potential emission reductions that could be gained
from control of industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) boilers
and other point sources (such as reciprocating engines and turbines).
The State of Iowa responded to the State of Minnesota in a letter dated
November 1, 2007, communicating that it would not commit to evaluate
further reductions of SO2 from EGUs because the State was
participating in the CAIR and because the State of Iowa had concerns
with the State of Minnesota's interpretations of the LADCO/Minnesota
four-factor analysis for reasonable progress. The State of Minnesota
relied upon information from its four-factor analysis as an appendix to
its request letter. The State of Iowa considered the State of
Minnesota's cost per deciview improvement figures, in a range of
approximately $3 billion/dv to $3.3 billion/dv, to be unreasonable for
SO2 control beyond CAIR for EGUs in the State of Iowa. The
State of Iowa also considered the State of Minnesota's dollar per
deciview figures, in a range of approximately $2.8 billion/dv to $3.4
billion/dv, to be unreasonable for control of ICIs. The State explained
that a similar argument could be made for reciprocating engines and
combustion engines.
    The State of Iowa also questioned the State of Minnesota's use of
the LADCO trajectory analysis to determine significance of emissions
from surrounding States because the trajectory analysis was based upon
theoretical air flow and did not account for chemical reactions in the
atmosphere that is accounted for in the CENRAP PSAT modeling. Because
the CENRAP PSAT modeling indicated that emissions from the State of
Iowa contribute less than 5 percent to impairment at Minnesota Class I
areas, the State of Iowa did not consider emissions from sources within
its boundaries to be significant (considering the State of Minnesota's
significance threshold of 5 percent).
    Iowa determined that additional controls were unsupported at this
first stage of the regional haze rule, because Minnesota did not
request that controls be installed on specific sources; did not provide
justification on how such controls would lead to visibility improvement
at the Minnesota Class I areas; did not provide documentation or
otherwise consult with Iowa regarding any specific visibility
improvement at the Minnesota Class I areas which would result from
controlling Iowa sources; and because of the cost and visibility issues
mentioned above. However on page 38 of the SIP, the State of Iowa does
commit to continued consultation with Minnesota in the future on issues
involving regional haze as requested and warranted. EPA believes that
this satisfies the requirement for consultation between these two
States.
    The State of Michigan wrote the State of Iowa a letter, dated
October 26, 2007, stating that it was not asking other States to reduce
emissions for purposes of meeting the requirements of the RHR. EPA
believes that this satisfies the requirement for consultation between
these two States.
    In summary, the State of Iowa consulted both directly and through
the RPO process with the States on which Iowa sources may have an
effect. EPA proposes to find that Iowa met the consultation
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and has addressed in its plan
all measures necessary to obtain its share of emission reductions
impacting visibility in Class I areas. 51.308(d)(3)(ii).

F. BART

    In the BART determination process, States must address all
significant visibility impairing pollutants. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. As indicated by the BART Guidelines, a State should use its best
judgment in determining whether VOCs, ammonia (NH3) or
ammonia compounds impair visibility in particular Class I areas.\10\
Iowa conducted a quantitative analysis of emissions inventory data to
show that Iowa point source NH3 and VOC emissions do not
cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in any Class I area.
This analysis is described in the TSD for this rulemaking, and EPA
agrees with this conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Appendix Y of 40 CFR Part 51-States should exercise
judgment in deciding whether the following pollutants impair
visibility in an area: (4) Volatile organic compounds (VOC), and (5)
Ammonia and ammonia compounds. A state should use its best judgment
in deciding whether VOC or ammonia emissions from a source are
likely to have an impact on visibility in an area. Certain types of
VOC emissions, for example, are more likely to form secondary
organic aerosols than others. Similarly, controlling ammonia
emissions in some areas may not have a significant impact on
visibility. A state need not provide a formal showing of an
individual decision that a source of VOC or ammonia emissions is not
subject to BART review. Because air quality modeling may not be
feasible for individual sources of VOC or ammonia, a state should
also exercise its judgment in assessing the degree of visibility
impacts due to emissions of VOC and emissions of ammonia or ammonia
compounds. A state should fully document the basis for judging that
a VOC or ammonia source merits BART review, including its assessment
of the source's contribution to visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. BART-Eligible Sources
    For an emission source to be identified as BART-eligible, the State
used these criteria from the BART Guidelines: (1) One or more emissions
units at the facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the
BART Guidelines; (2) the emission unit was in existence on August 7,
1977 and began operation at some point on or after August 7, 1962; and
(3) the limited potential emissions from all emission units identified
in the previous two items were 250 tons or more per year of any of
these visibility-impairing pollutants: SO2, NOX,
or PM10.
    To identify the sources that met the criteria above, Iowa required
sources to self identify as BART-eligible by rule (Iowa Administrative
Code 567-22.9 Special Requirements for Visibility Protection) on a form
supplied by the State. The State reviewed all in-house permitting,
Title V databases, and the submitted forms to determine if a source met
the criteria explained above. This process is outlined in detail in
Appendix 9 of the SIP. The twenty seven BART-eligible facilities
identified are listed in Table 4. EPA proposes to find that the State
appropriately identified the BART-eligible units in the State.

                        Table 4--Facilities With BART-Eligible Units in the State of Iowa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Facility
             Source category                       Company name             No.          BART Emission units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuel-fired Steam Electric Plant     Cedar Falls Utilities......    07-02-005  Unit 7 (EU10, 1A).
 Individually Greater than 250 MMBtu/hour.
                                           Central Iowa Power             88-01-004  Combustion turbines (EU1,
                                            Cooperative (CIPCO)--                     EU1G, EU2, EU2G).
                                            Summit Lake Station.
                                           Central Iowa Power             70-08-003  Unit 2 (EU2 & EU
                                            Cooperative (CIPCO)--Fair                 2G).
                                            Station.
                                           City of Ames--Steam            85-01-006  Boiler 7 (EU2).
                                            Electric Plant.
                                           Interstate Power and Light--   29-01-013  Main plant boiler.
                                            Burlington.

                                           Interstate Power and Light--   03-03-001  Boiler 4 Sixteen
                                            Lansing.                                  units total.
                                           Interstate Power and Light--   23-01-014  Boiler 2. Six
                                            ML Kapp.                                  units total.
                                           Interstate Power and Light--   57-01-042  Boiler 4. Fourteen
                                            Prairie Creek.                            units total.
                                           MidAmerican Energy Company--   78-01-026  Boiler 3 (EU003).
                                            Council Bluffs.
                                           MidAmerican Energy Company--   97-04-010  Boiler 1-3 (EU001-
                                            Neal North.                               EU003).
                                           MidAmerican Energy Company--   97-04-011  Boiler 4 (EU003).
                                            Neal South.
                                           Muscatine Power and Water..    70-01-011  Boiler 8.
                                           Pella Municipal Power Plant    63-02-005  Boilers 6-8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Process Plant...................  Equistar Chemicals.........    23-01-004  301 emission units.
                                           Koch Nitrogen Company......    94-01-005  Ammonia vapor flares and
                                                                                primary reformer/auxiliary
                                                                                boiler. 8 units total.
                                           Monsanto Company Muscatine.    70-01-008  Boilers 5-7. 57
                                                                                emission units total.
                                           Terra Nitrogen Port Neal       97-01-030  Boiler B & auxiliary
                                            Comp.                                     boiler.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Storage and Transfer Units with  BP--Bettendorf Terminal....    82-02-024  Truck loading.
 a Total Storage.
                                           BP--Des Moines Terminal....    77-01-158  Truck loading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland Cement Plant....................  Holcim (US) Inc............    17-01-009  109 emission units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuel-fired Boiler.................  ADM........................    23-01-006  7 & 8 boilers.
                                                                                These boilers will
                                                                                permanently shut down by 9/
                                                                                13/08.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iron and Steel Mills.....................  Bloomfield Foundry, Inc....    26-01-001  18 emission units.
                                           Griffin Pipe Products Co...    78-01-012  10 emission units.
                                           John Deere Foundry Waterloo    07-01-010  37 emission units.
                                           Keokuk Steel Casings, A        56-01-025  67 emission units.
                                            Matrix Metals Company LLC.
                                           The Dexter Company.........    51-01-005  Tumblers 5 & 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Metal Production...............  Alcoa, Inc.................    82-01-002  Hot line mill. 87 emissions
                                                                                units total.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. BART-Subject Sources
    Of the twenty seven BART-eligible facilities, thirteen are fossil-
fuel fired EGUs, and as such, are subject to CAIR for NOX
and SO2. As noted in EPA's separate notice proposing
revisions to the regional haze rule (76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011) a
number of States, including Iowa, relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirements for SO2 and NOX, in accordance with
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Prior to the CAIR remand, the State's reliance on
CAIR to satisfy BART for NOX and SO2 for affected
CAIR EGUs was fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). As explained above, we are not proposing to take action
in today's rulemaking on issues associated with Iowa's reliance on CAIR
in its regional haze SIP, including BART for SO2 and
NOX for EGUs. In a separate action, EPA has previously
proposed a limited disapproval of Iowa's regional haze SIP because of
deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from
the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(DC Circuit) to EPA of CAIR. 76 FR 82219. Comments on that proposed
determination may be directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
The PM BART evaluation for these sources is described in section V.F.2
below.
1. Non-EGUs
    Iowa used three screening approaches to determine if the remaining
fourteen non-EGU sources identified in table 4 were subject to BART:
     Q/d (``Q'' being allowable emissions, in tons per year,
and ``d'' representing the distance in km to the nearest Class I area,
multiplied by a prescribed constant);\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The method, originally developed by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, is a tool to
eliminate distant, insignificant emission sources from ambient
assessments submitted under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program. The Q/d method determines a source to
be insignificant if the allowable emissions in tons per year (Q)
divided by a constant times the distance in kilometers (d) is
greater than a value of 1. For example, North Carolina uses a
constant of 20, which was determined empirically. Therefore, a
source could be considered insignificant if its emissions divided by
20 times its distance, in km, from the nearest Class I area is less
than 1. For this application, for determining exemption from BART,
the combined emissions of SO2, NOX, and
PM2.5 of a BART-eligible unit could be divided by 20
times the distance to the nearest Class I area. If that quotient is
less than 1, the source would not be subject to BART. If a source is
not found to be exempt under this approach, the CALPUFF screening
analysis could still be used for an exemption determination. Page
25196 of 69 FR 25183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A variety of assessments using CAMx photochemical model (a
regional scale model); and
     An emissions inventory analysis.
    The RHR established thresholds defining the terms ``cause'' and
``contribute''. A source is said to ``cause'' visibility impairment if
its impact is equal to or greater than 1.0 dv at any Class I area. A
source is said to ``contribute'' to visibility impairment if its
impacts are equal to or greater than 0.5 dv at any Class I area.
Although the RHR affords States the opportunity to adopt a more
stringent deminimis threshold, the State of Iowa chose not to do so.
However, for its three step BART-subject screening analyses, the State
did utilize a threshold that considered the number of days a source's
impact was equal to or greater than 0.5 dv. The State chose seven days
for this threshold.\12\ The State's ``Variegated Protocol in Support of
Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations--May 2006'' explains
that if the State were to find no maximum delta-deciview (ddv) values
greater than 0.5 dv from any of the three screening methods, it would
provide a statewide exemption of the BART sources assessed in the given
scenario. Should initial cumulative modeling quantify ddv impacts
exceeding 0.5 dv, the State would refine its analyses. For each BART
eligible source, information regarding Q/d analyses, CALPUFF model
plant evaluation, and CAMx results were assembled and utilized in a
weight-of-

evidence approach in the final subject-to-BART determination. If a unit
was not clearly identifiable as either BART-subject or exempt from the
BART determination process, the State provided a case-by-case
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This is discussed on pages 3 and 11 of the State's
``Variegated Protocol in Support of Best Available Retrofit
Technology Determinations''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 lists each of the fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources
analyzed for Q/d estimates, where ``Q'' is the sum of NOX,
SO2 and PM10 emissions (PM2.5 direct
emission estimates were not available at the time of the calculations
were performed by the State) and ``d'' is the distance between the
source and the nearest Class I area in km. The Q/d estimates were
completed using both actual and potential emissions and were multiplied
by three different constants (20, 10, and 5). Iowa used a 1.0 threshold
as its Q/d screening threshold. Note that potential emissions include
only BART-eligible units while actual emissions represent facility wide
totals, thus in certain cases actual emissions may exceed potentials.
    Based on the six Q/d calculations the State categorized each of the
fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources into three categories: (1) Those
sources that clearly exceed the 1.0 threshold, (2) sources well below
the 1.0 threshold and 3) those sources with mixed results. Table 5
shows that only ADM-Clinton and Holcim, Inc. clearly exceed the 1.0
threshold in nearly each of the six Q/d calculations.

                                      Table 5--Nearest Class I Area & Q/d Values for Non-EGU BART-Eligible Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              BART Units potential emissions (tpy)             Facility wide actual emissions (tpy)
        Facility name             Nearest    Distance --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Class I      (km)       SO2       NOX    PM10    Q/20d   Q/10d   Q/5d     SO2     NOX    PM10    Q/20d   Q/10d   Q/5d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equistar Chemical............  MING........    531.2       3,883   3,433     258    0.71    1.43    2.85       1     728      52    0.07    0.15    0.29
Koch Nitrogen Company........  BOWA........    615.4          40   1,399      23    0.12    0.24    0.48       0     442      20    0.04    0.08    0.15
Monsanto-Muscatine...........  MING........    486.8         430     168      81    0.07    0.14    0.28     465     192       8    0.07    0.14    0.27
Terra Nitrogen-Port Neal.....  BADL........    487.6           1     916     325    0.13    0.25    0.51       1     461      33    0.05    0.10    0.20
BP-Bettendorf................  MING........    499.9           0       0       0    0.00    0.00    0.00       0       0       0    0.00    0.00    0.00
BP-Des Moines................  HEGL........    547.0           0       0       0    0.00    0.00    0.00       0       0       0    0.00    0.00    0.00
Holcim, Inc..................  BOWA........    527.0      28,715   4,738   1,000    3.27    6.54   13.07   3,826   2,813     190    0.65    1.30    2.59
ADM-Clinton..................  MING........    531.9       6,051   2,117     507    0.82    1.63    3.26   6,479   5,003   1,272    1.20    2.40    4.80
Bloomfield Foundry, Inc......  HEGL........    448.8         136      68     605    0.09    0.18    0.36       1       0      22    0.00    0.01    0.01
Griffin Pipe Products........  HEGL........    563.6         190     235     211    0.06    0.11    0.23       2      88     111    0.02    0.04    0.07
John Deere Foundry-Waterloo..  BOWA........    588.8           0       0     285    0.02    0.05    0.10       9      21      99    0.01    0.02    0.04
Keokuk Steel Casing..........  MING........    392.0          11      72     554    0.08    0.16    0.32       4       9      67    0.01    0.02    0.04
The Dexter Company...........  MING........    468.9           0       0     541    0.06    0.12    0.23      29       3     112    0.02    0.03    0.06
Alcoa, Inc...................  MING........    501.8          15     400   1,092    0.15    0.30    0.60       2     137     209    0.03    0.07    0.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A majority of the non-EGU facilities were well below the 1.0
screening threshold in all six Q/d tests. Eleven facilities, listed in
table 6, yield Q/d values well below 1.0 at even the most stringent
potential to emit Q/5d evaluation. The State subsequently determined
that these sources were unlikely to be subject to BART. Iowa indicates,
on page 13 of Appendix 9 to the SIP, that this conclusion is further
supported through evaluation of the Q/d values using facility-wide
actual emissions. The actual emission Q/5d values average 0.09, with
the upper limit at Monsanto Company-Muscatine of only 0.27. The State
determined that these low values suggested any emission reductions
would be insignificant at the nearest Class I area to the source.

  Table 6--Non-EGU BART-Eligible Facilities Significantly Below All Q/d
                             Screening Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koch Nitrogen Company
Monsanto- Muscatine
Terra Nitrogen-Port Neal
BP-Bettendorf
BP-Des Moines
Bloomfield Foundry, Inc.
Griffin Pipe Products
John Deere Foundry-Waterloo
Keokuk Steel Casing
The Dexter Company
Alcoa, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Equistar Chemical is the only facility listed in Table 5 above
where the results are not clear cut. Considering potential emissions,
the Q/20d value is 0.71 with Q/10d and Q/5d exceeding 1.0. Actual
emissions reveal that the most conservative value, Q/5d, remains well
below 1.0 at 0.29. Equistar Chemical reported facility wide
SO2 emissions in 2002 at one tpy, with NOX
emissions of 728 tpy. As shown in Table 5, the nearest Class I area
receptor is located at Mingo, at a distance of approximately 531 km.
The transport distance in combination with low actual emissions
produced the low Q/d value for Equistar Chemical. Under these
circumstances, Equistar Chemical is unlikely to be subject to BART.
However, the State considered results from additional analyses,
described below, before making any BART exemptions based solely on Q/d
calculations.
    The BART guidelines indicate that when determining if a source is
BART-subject, CALPUFF, or other appropriate models, can be used to
determine if an individual source is anticipated to cause or contribute
to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.\13\ The State explains in
Appendix 9 to the SIP, and in its Variegated Protocol, that because
each BART-eligible unit located within the State was an average of 516
km (with a minimum of 392 km) away from the nearest Class I area, it
experienced difficulties using the CALPUFF model to determine if a unit
was BART-subject, due to the tendency of CALPUFF to over-predict single
source contributions. The State did use CALPUFF as the modeling tool
for its model plant approach described below, in the TSD for this
rulemaking, and in section 5.2 of Appendix 9 to the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species non-steady-state
puff dispersion model that simulates the effects of time- and space-
varying meteorological conditions on pollution transport,
transformation and removal. CALPUFF can be applied on scales of tens
to hundreds of kilometers. It includes algorithms for subgrid scale
effects (such as terrain impingement), as well as longer range
effects (such as pollutant removal due to wet scavenging and dry
deposition, chemical transformation, and visibility effects of
particulate matter concentrations). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the model plant analysis, the State utilized combined
(SO2 and NOX) emission rates of 5,000 tpy and
3,000 tpy per source because of the distance from the sources to the
Class I areas. The State chose to use the following Class I areas based
on their distance from Iowa sources: BADL, BOWA, VOYA, MING, HEGL, ISLE
and SENE. Natural background concentrations were extracted from the
EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the
Regional Haze Program.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf.

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

    During the State's analyses, each model plant simulation required
fourteen iterations: Two natural background scenarios across seven
Class I areas. Results for each Class I area assessment were tabulated
and ranked individually. Both maximum and 98th percentile values were
considered when determining the levels at which emissions may cause (dv
impacts greater than or equal to 1.0) or contribute (dv impacts greater
than or equal to 0.5) to visibility impairment.
    The results of the analysis (given on page 28 and 29 of Appendix 9
to the SIP) showed that the model plant, with 5,000 tpy of
NOX and SO2 combined (and 50 tpy of
PM2.5) did not yield any dv impacts greater than 0.5 dv at
the 98th percentile as compared against annually averaged natural
background conditions. In the years 2002 and 2003, a maximum of five
days exceed the 0.5 dv impact threshold, occurring at the BADL, likely
due to utilization of the cleaner Western natural background
conditions.\15\ During 2004, six days exceed the 0.5 dv impact
threshold. The remaining six Class I area evaluations yield counts less
than or equal to five days with impacts greater than 0.5 dv.
Considering individual daily maximum impacts, 2002 values remain near
the 0.5 dv level; slightly higher maximum impacts occur in 2003. In
2004 maximum impacts were consistently above 1.0 dv. When compared
against the 20 percent best natural background conditions, each year,
for each site, had more than seven days with maximum impacts exceeding
0.5 dv. As expected, maximum individual daily impacts show a
corresponding increase versus annually averaged natural background
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Annual average natural background concentrations are not
strictly Class I area specific. Alternatively, sites are assigned
one of two datasets: Eastern or Western. Of the seven Class I areas
examined within the Iowa domain, all are considered Eastern sites
with the exception of the Badlands. Page 23 of Appendix 9 to the
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the model plant analysis with 3,000 tpy of
NOX and SO2 combined (and 50 tpy of
PM2.5) showed that the 98th percentile is never exceeded,
regardless of the natural background scenario. Additionally, at 3,000
tpy of NOX and SO2 emissions combined, maximum
impacts for the years 2002 and 2003, as compared against annually
averaged natural background conditions, do not exceed 0.5 dv. The year
2004 does produce impacts above 0.5 dv. Two days above 0.5 dv are
modeled for the BADL, and one day above 0.5 dv are shown for the
remaining Class I areas. The 20 percent best natural background
conditions--maximum daily impacts remain below 0.5 dv for all but SENE
in 2002. In 2003, impacts greater than 0.5 dv are found for each site,
but occur on no more than two days. Again, emissions in 2004 result in
the dv highest impacts, but the impacts do not exceed the 98th
percentile.
    Based upon these results, the State concluded that any BART-
eligible source that emitted less than 3,000 tpy of combined
NOX, SO2 and PM2.5 would likely be
exempt from being BART-subject. At the 3,000 tpy level, evaluation
against the stringent 20 percent best natural background conditions
yields no more than five days with impacts exceeding 0.5 dv. Utilizing
the emissions data (provided in table 5), the State determined that
eleven of the fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources would remain well
below the 3,000 tpy combined potential to emit. These happen to be the
same facilities already identified in table 6 as being below the Q/d
screening thresholds.
    As a final tool to help in the BART-subject screening process, the
State utilized the CAMx regional modeling system to model cumulative
impacts across all BART-eligible sources at Class I areas. As set forth
in the BART guidelines, a State may consider exempting all its BART-
eligible sources from BART by conducting analyses that show that all of
the emissions from BART-eligible sources in the State, taken together,
are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute visibility
impairment. To make such a showing, a State could use CALPUFF or
another appropriate dispersion model to evaluate the impacts of
individual sources on downwind Class I areas, aggregating those impacts
to determine the collective contribution from all-BART eligible sources
in the State. A State with a sufficiently large number of BART-eligible
sources could also make such a showing using a photochemical grid
model.\16\ EPA determined that the option of allowing a State to
demonstrate that the full group of BART-eligible sources in the State
does not contribute to visibility impairment would, by default, satisfy
an individual source contribution assessment. As previously discussed,
the State had concerns with the use of CALPUFF, so it elected to use
the photochemical model CAMx to model cumulative impacts of all BART-
eligible sources across Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For regional haze applications, regional scale modeling
typically involves use of a photochemical grid model that is capable
of simulating aerosol chemistry, transport, and deposition of
airborne pollutants, including particulate matter and ozone.
Regional scale air quality models are generally applied for
geographic scales ranging from a multistate to the continental
scale. Because of the design and intended applications of grid
models, they may not be appropriate for BART assessments, so States
should consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office prior to
carrying out any such modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the Q/d analysis, the State utilized a 0.5 dv impact as
screening a threshold of the CAMx modeling results. For all cumulative
CAMx modeling scenarios, the scenario design involved zeroing the
actual point source emissions of BART-eligible sources on a facility-
wide basis. In zeroing BART-eligible facility emissions, emphasis was
placed upon the elevated point source emissions. The BART-eligible
source list included distinctions for CAIR versus non-CAIR units (in
lieu of CAIR as BART). This analysis is described in detail in the TSD
for this rulemaking and in appendix 9 of the SIP.
    In summary, considering a 12 km grid, emissions from non-EGU BART-
eligible sources and natural background conditions, the maximum impact
modeled is 0.63 dv (BOWA) with a maximum of only two days above the 0.5
dv threshold (ISLE). Under the 20 percent best natural background
conditions, the maximum impact increases to 0.93 dv (BOWA), and the
maximum frequency of impacts greater than 0.5 dv is five days (ISLE).
Because there were impacts greater than the 0.5 dv threshold, the State
could not provide a blanket exemption for all non-EGU BART-eligible
sources considering just the results of the CAMx modeling. The State
did not consider these analyses to be definitive so it considered
actual emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from the sources
evaluated in the modeling. Because eleven of the non-EGU BART-eligible
sources (the same eleven as previously identified in table 6) comprise
approximately 11 percent (2,547 tpy of SO2, NOX
and PM) of the total of actual emissions (22,911 tpy of SO2,
NOX and PM) from all fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources,
the State determined that these eleven sources were unlikely to play a
significant role in the cumulative modeled visibility impacts.
    Although Iowa did not strictly follow the guidelines for exempting
a source, specifically with respect to modeling a BART-eligible source
using maximum actual emissions, in this case EPA has determined that
Iowa's alternative analysis should result in an acceptable conclusion
to exempt these eleven sources for the following reasons. First, the
State's analysis used both actual emissions on a facility-wide basis
and potential emissions for the BART-eligible units. When looking at
the

actual emissions facility-wide, for many of the sources, it was clear
that had the maximum actual emissions been modeled using CALPUFF, the
results would indicate minimal visibility impacts. This was apparent
when comparing the modeled plant analysis emission inputs with the
actual emissions. In almost all cases the sum of the actual emissions
of visibility impairing emissions were significantly less than those
used in the model plant analysis. The same is also true when looking at
the potential emissions for many of these sources. Given that most of
these non-EGU units do not have continuous emission monitoring systems
(CEMS) that can be used for an accurate calculation of actual maximum
24-hour emission rate, using both the actual annual emissions facility-
wide and potential emissions for the BART-eligible units provides
confidence that these sources can be excluded as BART sources. Second,
the Q/d analysis Iowa used provided a good indication of those sources
where additional analysis might be warranted. Although we have not
specifically relied on the Q/d analysis for our approval of BART
exemptions, we do believe it was informative and the use of Q/5d is
fairly conservative for this type of an analysis. We believe that the
State reasonably demonstrated that the eleven non-EGU BART-eligible
sources (listed above in table 6) are not BART-subject. The remaining
discussion of this section will focus on the three remaining non-EGU
BART-eligible facilities that were not exempted: Equistar Chemical,
Holcim, and ADM-Clinton.
    Equistar Chemical's potential and actual emissions are dominated by
VOCs, and not SO2, NOX or PM. While potential
emissions of SO2 and NOX exceed the 5,000 tpy
model plant threshold, the actual emissions are far below the 3,000 tpy
threshold--729 tons per year of NOX and SO2
combined. As such, the State determined that Equistar Chemical would
not contribute impacts exceeding 0.5 dv, and was therefore not BART-
subject. EPA agrees with this determination.
    Both Holcim and ADM-Clinton fail the Q/d and CALPUFF model plant
analyses. Almost all Q/d metrics exceed the 1.0 significance level,
while SO2 and NOX emissions (potentials and
actual emissions) exceed both the 3,000 and 5,000 tpy scenarios
examined with the CALPUFF model plant application. The State decided to
look at both ADM-Clinton and Holcim on a case-by-case basis.
    As mentioned previously, the State found the uncertainties of using
the CALPUFF modeling system for determining single source visibility
impacts from sources far removed from Class I areas very challenging.
The State decided to use an alternative process, scaling the cumulative
modeling impacts according to emission rates. The State utilized the
maximum dv impacts from the most relevant CAMx modeling scenario, at
the most stringent 20 percent best natural background conditions, a
value of 0.93 dv to scale actual SO2, NOX and PM
emissions for both sources. The State zeroed out the actual
SO2, NOX and PM emissions in the following
scenario. Because Holcim's SO2, NOX and PM
emissions account for 6,828 tpy of the 22,911 tpy total non-EGU BART-
eligible sources' SO2, NOX and PM emissions,
Holcim's proportional share would account for 30 percent of the
emissions. If ADM-Clinton's SO2, NOX and PM
emissions account for 12,755 tpy of the 22,911 tpy total non-EGU BART-
eligible sources' SO2, NOX and PM emissions, ADM-
Clinton would account for 56 percent of the emissions. The State then
scaled the visibility impact attributable to Holcim and ADM-Clinton. If
the maximum visibility impact from all non-EGU BART-eligible sources
was figured to be 0.93 dv, and Holcim was found to contribute
approximately 30 percent to that impairment, it could be estimated that
Holcim would contribute approximately 0.28 dv visibility impairment
(below the 0.5 dv threshold). Using the same method, ADM-Clinton was
found to contribute approximately 56 percent to the maximum visibility
impairment, or approximately 0.52 dv, above the 0.5 dv threshold. The
State found that this additional information supported a determination
that Holcim did not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at any
Class I area, and was not BART-subject, however, the same determination
for ADM Clinton could not be made according to this analysis.
    As described previously, from the three screening approaches the
State used, ADM-Clinton could not be ruled out from contributing to
visibility impairment at Class I areas. However, at the time the State
drafted the SIP, ADM-Clinton was going through a PSD permitting
activity to construct new boilers. In the permit for the new boilers
(Permit 05-A-314), ADM-Clinton was required to shut down boilers 1-14
no later than 180 days after the startup of the new boilers.\17\ This
includes the two BART-eligible boilers, numbers 7 and 8. We have
confirmed with the State that these boilers have indeed shut down. In
the PSD permit for the new boilers that replaced boilers 7 and 8, the
facility was required to install and operate a baghouse, selective non-
catalytic reduction, and limestone injection flue gas desulfurization
on the new boiler units (three coal burning and two natural gas; five
in total). The construction permit limited the emissions of the
replacement boiler units through an annual cap applicable across all
five new units. SO2 emissions are not to exceed 3,629 tpy
and NOX emissions are not to exceed 1,445 tpy. These limits
represent best available control technology (BACT) emission rates as
required under the PSD program.\18\ Because the BART-eligible boilers
were permanently shut down pursuant to an enforceable PSD permit, and
the replacement boilers satisfy BACT, the State concluded that ADM-
Clinton was not subject to BART. EPA agrees with this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ https://aqbweb.iowadnr.gov/data/23/2301006/05A314P.pdf.
    \18\ The applicable State permit numbers are 05-A-313-P, 05-A-
314-P, 05-A-315-P for the coal-fired boilers, and 05-A-316-P, 05-A-
317-P for the natural gas fired boilers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes the State's approach to the photochemical modeling
analysis does not fully account for the non-linear aspects of
photochemical modeling and does not fully acknowledge that modeled
impacts will not necessarily be directly proportional to the modeled
emissions. However, EPA believes it is unlikely that Holcim will have
visibility impacts on a Class I area greater than 0.5 dv for the
following reasons. First, all modeled sources, including Holcim, are
located a significant distance from any Class I area, with Holcim being
527 km from the nearest Class I area. Second, the modeling inputs
showed that emissions from Holcim constituted only 30 percent of total
emissions from the modeled sources. Third, the maximum modeled impacts
from this group of sources at any Class I area using average natural
background conditions is 0.64 dv with at most 2 days of impacts over
0.5 dv. Fourth, looking at all the maximum modeled impacts at all seven
Class I areas shows an average maximum impact of 0.44 dv, indicating
that no single source is likely the cause for the majority of impacts
at any single Class I area. Finally, ADM-Clinton represents 56 percent
of the visibility impairing emissions of the modeled sources and this
source's BART eligible units have been permanently shut down, thus EPA
anticipates impacts from the remaining group of sources would have less
than a 0.5 dv impact. Based on these factors, EPA believes that State
adequately demonstrated that Holcim does not cause or contribute to

visibility impairment in any Class I areas, and therefore is not
subject to BART.
2. EGU BART Evaluation for PM
    As the State relied on CAIR to address NOX and
SO2 emissions, only an evaluation for PM was conducted for
BART-eligible EGUs. There is no PM presumptive emission rate for EGUs
with a capacity of 750 MW or greater. The State again relied on its
CALPUFF model plant analysis for analyzing EGU PM emissions. Model year
2004 was selected in order to generate maximum impacts (the State's
analysis showed that 2004 data generated impacts that exceeded 2002 and
2003 data). Two scenarios were completed using emission rates of 10,000
and 5,000 tpy of PM, NOX, or SO2 emissions. The
model plant configuration was modified to reflect idealized EGU stack
parameters, obtained from the EPA's CALPUFF analysis in support of the
June 2005 changes to the RHR. Graphical results are given on page 46 of
Appendix 9 to the SIP.
    No impacts above 0.5 dv were observed at any Class I area under
annually averaged natural background conditions with PM emissions of
10,000 tpy. Under the 20 percent best natural background conditions no
impacts exceeding the 98th percentile occur. Reducing the emissions to
5,000 tpy, no impacts above 0.5 dv were produced under annually
averaged background conditions or 20 percent best natural background
conditions. In terms of scale, Iowa's largest PM10 source
(an EGU that is not BART-eligible) emits 3,174 tpy (based on a
facility-wide value), approximately 36.5 percent below the emission
rate which yielded no visibility impacts. Based upon these results the
State concluded, and the EPA agrees, that PM emissions from BART-
eligible EGUs in the State of Iowa would not cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any nearby Class I area, and are therefore not
subject to BART for PM.

G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)

    EPA's visibility regulations direct States to coordinate their RAVI
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as
explained in section III. F. of this action. Under EPA's RAVI
regulations, the RAVI portion of a State SIP must address any integral
vistas identified by FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral vista
is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the
mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.''
Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral
vista associated with that area. Iowa has no Class I areas, and FLMs
did not identify any integral vistas affected by Iowa sources.
Therefore, the Iowa regional haze SIP submittal is not required to
address the two requirements regarding coordination of the regional
haze SIP with the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions.

H. Monitoring Strategy

    Because it does not host a Class I area, Iowa is not required to
develop a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and
reporting regional haze impairment that is representative of Class I
areas within the State. However, Iowa is required to establish
procedures by which monitoring data and other information is used to
determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to
regional haze impairment at Class I areas outside of the State.
    There are two IMPROVE monitoring protocol sites (sites that are not
managed directly by IMPROVE, but by the operating agency) which are
operated in the State. One is located at Lake Viking State Park in
southwestern Iowa, and the second is located at Lake Sugema Wildlife
Management Area in southeastern Iowa. The monitors began operation in
June 2002. Descriptions of these monitoring sites and methods for data
validation can be found in Chapter 6 of the State's Regional Haze SIP.
The State has provided a commitment in Chapter 6 of the SIP to maintain
the IMPROVE protocol monitoring sites contingent upon continued
national funding.
    Data from IMPROVE protocol monitors is analyzed by a national
laboratory (funded via an interagency agreement between the EPA and the
National Park Service) and uploaded by the laboratory into two publicly
available databases at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve and
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/. Any supplemental monitoring
data from additional monitoring equipment at each site is publicly
available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs.
    EPA believes the State's commitments to utilize data from these
sites, or any other EPA-approved monitoring network location, to
characterize and model conditions within the State and to compare
visibility conditions in the State to visibility impairment at Class I
areas hosted by other States. EPA proposes that Iowa has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).

I. Emissions Inventory

    Iowa was required to develop a statewide emissions inventory of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. This inventory must include
baseline year emissions, emissions for the most recent year that data
is available, and estimates of future year emissions. The State
provided an inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area: VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM2.5,
PM10, and ammonia (NH3). As required, the
inventory includes emissions for a baseline year (2002), the most
recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future year
(2018) projected emissions along with a commitment to update the
inventory periodically.
    The 2002 point source inventory was derived from the 2002 National
Emission Inventory (NEI).\19\ All other source category emission
inventories were developed by CENRAP and its contractors as part of the
development of a baseline inventory for the 2002 modeling
inventory.\20\ A summary of the 2002 baseline emissions inventory can
be found in Chapter 7 of the SIP. Methodologies for the development of
the 2002 emissions inventories can be found in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html.
    \20\ http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the 2018 future year emissions the State grew the 2002
emissions using the Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) 5, MOBILE 6
and NONROAD vehicle emissions software. The State also used the IPM to
forecast EGU emissions.
    As shown in table 7, the State made a modification to the estimated
2018 SO2 emissions for the point source EGU source category.
In tables 7 and 8, the 2002 and 2018 point source EGU SO2
emissions are 135,833 and 160,733 tons per year (tpy), respectively.
The State was concerned with the accuracy of the 2018 (160,733 tpy)
value. CENRAP utilized the ``RPO version 2.1.9'' IPM (referred to as
IPM v2.1.9) predictions to generate the 2018 BaseG scenario,\21\ in
which total Iowa EGU SO2 emissions were forecast to be
approximately 147,305 tpy. During review of the

CENRAP BaseE2 modeling, errors were identified in the 2018 Iowa EGU
emissions. Among the errors, certain EGU emissions were overestimated
when a growth methodology was applied twice, once with EGAS and then
again within IPM. Following error identification, corrections were
submitted for inclusion in the BaseF (and subsequent BaseG) modeling
scenarios. After the corrections, 2018 EGU SO2 emissions
totaled 151,354 tpy. Thus, the State believed the value of 160,733 tpy
provided through the emissions inventory report developed by a CENRAP
contractor to be inaccurate.\22\ The State found that the corrected EGU
SO2 emissions estimate of 151,354 tpy for 2018 is
conservative, given updated results from IPM version 3.0 (discussed in
Chapter 11 of the SIP) and Iowa's participation in CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The CENRAP modeling emissions inventory consists of several
distinct datasets: the 2002 basecase for model performance
evaluation, 2002 typical, 2018 basecase, and the 2018 control
strategy scenario. The inventory was refined through several rounds
of CENRAP workgroup review and revision, beginning with the initial
BaseA version and culminating in the BaseG inventory.
    \22\ The ``Consolidation of Emissions Inventories''--Pechan
Report No. 05.03.002/9500.003.

                                                          Table 7--2002 Iowa Emissions Summary
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia.................................................               0               0               0               0         258,915               0
Area....................................................         106,712           6,782          11,540          12,182           6.560           3,184
Area Fire...............................................           1,120             138           4,681           4,893               0             160
Fugitive Dust...........................................               0               0          38,666         193,331               0               0
Off road................................................          63,694          92,595           8,904           9,707              79           9,037
On road.................................................          87,392         120,621           1,747           2,373           3,064           3,200
Point EGU...............................................           1,075          81,761           4,527           9,424               0         135,833
Point Fire..............................................             545              33             594             700              48              35
Point NonEGU............................................          41,184          35,812           7,651           17495           3,317          51,836
Road dust...............................................               0               0          19,525         127,882               0               0
Wildfire................................................               5              29             218             224               0               8
Biogenic................................................         408,291          25,732  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         710,018         363,503          98,053         378,211         271,983         203,293
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                     Table 8--2018 Iowa Projected Emissions Summary
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia.................................................               0               0               0               0         302,012               0
Area....................................................         127,849           7,476          10,677          11,510          13,304           3,224
Area Fire...............................................           1,120             138           4,681           4,893               0             160
Fugitive Dust...........................................               0               0          40,608         203,044               0               0
Off road................................................          37,143          60,210           5,582           6,088             101             220
On road.................................................          36,404          33,975             708             708           4,225             400
Point EGU...............................................           1,802          65,629           9,578          11,232             713         151,354
Point Fire..............................................             547              33             596             702              49              36
Point NonEGU............................................          56,714          40,964          10,151          21,737           5,763          42,862
Road dust...............................................               0               0          17,712         114,889               0               0
Wildfire................................................               5              29             218             224               0               8
Biogenic................................................         408,291          25,732  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         669,875         234,186         100,511         375,027         326,167         198,264
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes that the 2002 and 2018 statewide emissions inventories
and the State's method for developing the 2018 emissions inventory
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) of the regional haze
rule.

J. Reporting Requirements

    EPA has reviewed and believes the State's reporting strategy meets
the requirements of the regional haze rule. The State is required to
maintain reporting, record keeping and other measures necessary to
assess and report on visibility improvements. In communications with
the EPA, Iowa asserts that by complying with the Air Emissions
Reporting Rule, in addition to the State's commitment (page 56, Chapter
12 of the SIP) to complete the periodic review as required in 40 CFR
51.308(g), for which the most recent or most appropriate emissions data
will be used, such as CEMS data, it has met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4)(v) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) of the RHR. The EPA
believes the State's methods of reporting and record keeping of
emissions meet the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) of the RHR.

K. Consultation With Federal Land Managers

    The State of Iowa met the FLM consultation requirement by sending
the draft SIP to the FLMs on November 26, 2007, and notifying the FLMs
of the public hearing on January 30, 2008. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires
States to provide a description of how they addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Iowa has provided this in Appendix 2.1 of the
SIP. EPA believes that Iowa adequately responded to the comments
received from the FLMs and from EPA.

    Regional haze SIPs must also provide procedures for continuing
consultation between the State and FLMs on the implementation of 40 CFR
51.308, including development and review of SIP revisions and 5-year
progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having
the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I
areas. The State of Iowa has committed to continuing to coordinate and
consult with the FLMs during the development of future progress reports
and plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of programs
having the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in Class I
areas.
    EPA proposes to find that the State of Iowa has satisfied the
consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).

L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five Year Progress Reports

    Iowa acknowledged the requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(f) to submit
periodic progress reports and regional haze SIP revisions, with the
first report due by July 31, 2018, and revisions due every ten years
thereafter. Iowa has committed to meeting this requirement.
    Iowa also acknowledged the requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to
submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years
following this initial SIP submittal. Iowa committed to submitting the
required five year SIP revision, evaluating the progress made towards
the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area which may be affected by
emissions from Iowa sources. Iowa committed to addressing all the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 (g), including a review of the changes in
the emission inventory, a review of the periodic reporting
requirements, and a determination of whether additional action is
needed according to 40 CFR 51.308(h).
    We propose to find that Iowa has satisfied the requirements to
submit periodic SIP revisions and progress reports as required by 40
CFR 51.308(f)-(h).

V. Proposed Actions

    We propose a limited approval of Iowa's March 25, 2008 SIP revision
addressing regional haze. In a separate action, EPA has proposed a
limited disapproval of the Iowa regional haze SIP because of
deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from
the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements. 76 FR 82219. We are not proposing to take action in
today's rulemaking on issues associated with Iowa's reliance on CAIR in
its regional haze SIP.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by the EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The CAA
forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, the EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires the EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will 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, because it merely
approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule
does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order
13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 15, 2012.