4886 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by March 28, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: January 13, 2016. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Xcel Energy-Inver Hills Generating 

Plant’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS

Name of Source Permit No. 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Comments 

*******

Xcel Energy-Inver Hills 

Generating Plant.

03700015–004 07/16/14 01/28/16, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Only conditions cited as ‘‘Title I condition: SIP for 

SO2 NAAQS.’’ 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–01577 Filed 1–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0644; FRL–9941–68– 

Region 7] 

Approval of Missouri’s Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Americold 

Logistics, LLC 24-Hour Particulate 

Matter (PM10) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) Consent 

Judgment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Missouri on June 2, 2014. 

This SIP revision incorporates a consent 

judgment to address violations of the 

24-hour particulate matter (PM10) 

NAAQS near the Americold Logistics, 

LLC, Carthage Crushed Limestone (CCL) 

facility near Carthage, Missouri. CCL is 

a limestone quarry operation. The 

consent judgment between the State of 

Missouri and CCL includes measures 

that will control PM10 emissions from 

the facility. This approval will make the 

consent judgment Federally-enforceable. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective March 28, 2016, without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by February 29, 2016. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0644, to 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Hamilton, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

913–551–7039 or by email at 

hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. Background 

II. What is being addressed in this document? 

III. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 4887 

I. Background 

EPA’s current health-based PM10

NAAQS was set in 1987 at a level of 150 

mg/m3 measured over 24 hours. 40 CFR 

50.6(a). An exceedance of the NAAQS is 

a daily (24-hour average) PM10

concentration that is above the level of 

the standard. A violation of the NAAQS 

occurs when an exceedance occurs more 

than once per year on average over three 

years. 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. 

Exceedances and violations of the 

PM10 NAAQS at the Carthage monitor 

date back to 2001. In October 2003, the 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources (MDNR) Air Pollution 

Control Program and Americold 

Logistics, LLC, Carthage Crushed 

Limestone (CCL) entered into a 

settlement agreement that contained 

measures for reducing CCL’s fugitive 

particulate matter emissions for 

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS. The 

measures put in place from the 

settlement agreement reduced the 

number of PM10 exceedances at the 

Carthage monitor for several years. 

There were no exceedances in 2009 

and 2010; however, based on validated 

air quality data from 2011 to 2013, the 

Carthage monitor again experienced a 

number of exceedances as evidenced in 

the following table: 

CARTHAGE PM10 AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

DATA VALIDITY AND CERTIFICATION

THROUGH JUNE 30, 2013 

Date 

24-Hour PM10

exceedance 

(μg/m3) 

June 23, 2011 ....................... 174 

September 9, 2011 ............... 159 

September 26, 2011 ............. 258 

November 30, 2011 .............. 192 

January 16, 2012 .................. 222 

After an internal analysis to identify 

potential sources of emissions for the 

exceedances, the MDNR Air Pollution 

Control Program contacted CCL 

regarding their operations at the facility. 

On June 8, 2012, CCL proposed 

additional control measures that were 

necessary due to malfunctioning 

equipment and processing issues at the 

facility. 

II. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve a revision to the SIP submitted 

by the State of Missouri on June 2, 2014. 

Missouri requested that EPA approve 

Americold Logistics, LLC, Carthage 

Crushed Limestone (CCL) consent 

judgment for inclusion into the Missouri 

SIP. The consent judgment between the 

state of Missouri and CCL was entered 

on May 3, 2014, and effective May 13, 

2014. The consent judgment requires 

CCL to apply specific measures and 

work practices to reduce PM10

emissions generated at the facility. 

These measures and practices were 

required to be operational by March 31, 

2014. CCL has implemented and made 

operational these measures in 

accordance with the consent judgment 

timelines. 

As a result, CCL worked cooperatively 

with MDNR who developed an 

enforceable consent judgment for 

implementing controls to further reduce 

PM10 emissions at the facility. CCL 

proactively put several controls in place 

during 2012 and 2013 prior to 

finalization of the consent judgment. 

Control measures to reduce fugitive 

PM10 emissions in the 2014 consent 

judgment include the following: (1) 

Installation of wet suppression for 

crushers; (2) eliminate screen and install 

a hopper to reduce free fall of rock; (3) 

install a CFM compressor for the 

baghouse controlling the Cedar Rapids 

dryer; (4) design and install a new drop 

point/transition to improve seal at 

conveyor transfer points; (5) install a 

new bin top in the west lime hopper; (6) 

fabricate a new transition on elevator 

head where it drops on to tail of the line 

to the conveyor belt, and install a new 

head house and boot that seals to the 

elevator; (7) rebuild a water truck to 

contain eight thousand gallons of water 

for haul roads; (8) enclose the bed of the 

haul truck that hauls waste fines to 

stock pile area; (9) develop an operation 

and maintenance plan for MDNR 

approval, and, (10) submit a full 

emissions inventory questionnaire for 

the calendar year 2012. The 

aforementioned control measures were 

completed according to schedule. 

The consent judgment also includes 

contingency measures in the event of an 

exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS. 

Contingency measures include 

investigating and addressing any 

exceedance to the extent possible in a 

timely manner including a detailed 

report to the MDNR Air Pollution 

Control Program within ten days. 

Additional contingency measures 

outlined in the consent judgment are to 

be reported no later than ninety days 

after the calendar quarter in which the 

monitoring data was measured. 

In addition to the measures outlined 

in the consent judgment, CCL has 

voluntarily agreed to participate in a 

near-real-time PM10 concentration alarm 

notification system for monitored 

hourly PM10 levels that exceed the 150 

mg/m3. This activity is strictly voluntary 

and the MDNR Air Pollution Control 

Program is not submitting requirements 

for CCL to participate in the alarm 

notification for inclusion in this SIP 

action. 

Since entering into the consent 

judgment with the MDNR, there was 

one exceedance of the PM10 standard on 

December 8, 2014. There have been no 

other exceedances recorded since that 

date. CCL, in accordance with the 

consent judgment contingency 

measures, notified the MDNR Air 

Pollution Control Program about the 

exceedance. The MDNR Air Pollution 

Control Program continues to monitor 

air quality and to work with the facility 

as necessary to implement the 

contingency measures of the consent 

judgment through a corrective action 

plan that addresses the 2014 

exceedance. 

The control and contingency 

measures identified in the consent 

judgment, and included in MDNR’s SIP 

revision request, is a significant 

strengthening of the current 

requirements applicable to this source 

to control fugitive PM emissions. EPA 

believes that these requirements will 

reduce or potentially eliminate future 

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS and 

lead to improvements in the air quality 

in the area surrounding CCL’s facility. 

The work practice revisions and 

mechanical upgrades along with the 

contingency measures put into action by 

the consent judgment and this SIP 

revision provide for permanent 

modifications that deal with past and 

future exceedances in a manner that 

limits their potential and represent an 

effective short term and long term 

control strategy for fugitive emissions of 

coarse particulate matter. 

III. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

The June 2, 2014, submission has met 

the public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. In addition, the revision 

meets the substantive SIP requirements 

of the CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve this SIP revision. We are 

publishing this rule without a prior 

proposed rule because we view this as 

a noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. However, in the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this 

Federal Register, we are publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposed rule to approve this SIP 

revision, if adverse comments are 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
4888 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

received on this direct final rule. We 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. For further information about 

commenting on this rule, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this document. If 

EPA receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. We will address all public 

comments in any subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the Missouri Source 

Specific Permits and Orders described 

in the direct final amendments to 40 

CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and at the 

appropriate EPA office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by March 28, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

Dated: January 11, 2016. 

Mark Hague, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 

as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. Section 52.1320(d) is amended by 

adding entry (30) at the end of the table 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 4889 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS

Name of source Order/Permit No. State effective 

date EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

(30) Americold Logistics, LLC 24-Hour Particulate 

Matter (PM10) National Ambient Air Quality 

(NAAQS) Consent Judgment.

Consent Judgment 14AP– 

CC00036.

4/27/14 1/28/16, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

........................

[FR Doc. 2016–01660 Filed 1–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0545; FRL–9941–72– 

Region 9] 

Disapproval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing disapproval 

of revisions to the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on November 24, 2015 and 

concerns rules regulating Vehicle 

Scrapping, Employee Trip Reduction, 

and procedures for the hearing board 

concerning variances and subpoenas. 

The submitted SCAQMD rules are 

discretionary and this disapproval does 

not reveal a deficiency in the SIP. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on February 29, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0545 for this action. Generally, 

documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94015–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed at www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73156), 

the EPA proposed to disapprove the 

following rules that were submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted or 

amended Submitted 

SCAQMD .................................... 1610 Old-Vehicle Scrapping .................................................................... 05/09/97 .. 06/03/97 

SCAQMD .................................... 2202 On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options .................................... 10/09/98 .. 06/03/99 

SCAQMD .................................... 503.1 Ex Parte Petitions for Variances .................................................... 02/05/88 .. 02/07/89 

SCAQMD .................................... 504 Rules from which Variances Are Not Allowed ............................... 01/05/90 .. 05/13/91 

SCAQMD .................................... 511.1 Subpoenas ...................................................................................... 02/05/88 ... 02/07/89 

We proposed to disapprove these 

rules because some rule provisions do 

not satisfy the requirements of section 

110 and part D of the Act. 

We proposed to disapprove the SIP 

revision for Rule 1610 based at least in 

part on the following deficiencies: 

1. The Section (e)(2) requirement that 

engines of scrapped vehicles be 

destroyed is insufficiently federally 

enforceable for various reasons. 

2. The Section (f)(2)(A) requirement 

that the vehicle be registered for two 

years within SCAQMD is not fully 

enforceable by allowing the Executive 

Officer to approve different 

documentation. 

3. The Section (g) requirement of a 

visual and functional inspection of the 

vehicle has no recordkeeping 

requirements. 

4. There is no recordkeeping 

requirement to demonstrate compliance 

with the Section (g)(1) requirement that 

vehicles be driven under their own 

power to the scrapping site. 5. There is no requirement to 

maintain records for the life of Mobile 

Source Emission Reduction Credits. 

We proposed to disapprove the SIP 

revision for Rule 2202 based at least in 

part on the following deficiencies: 1. Per Section (f)(1), the rule relies on 

Regulation XVI, which is not currently 

in the SIP. 

2. Per Section (f)(3), the rule relies on 

the Air Quality Investment Program 

(Rule 2501), which is not currently in 

the SIP. 

3. Per Section (f)(4), the rule relies on 

emission reduction strategies approved 

on a case-by-case basis by the Executive 

Officer. 

4. Per Section (g)(4), the rule relies on 

vehicle miles travelled reduction 

programs approved on a case-by-case 

basis by the Executive Officer. 

We proposed to disapprove the SIP 

revision for Rules 503.1 and 504 

because they conflict with CAA sections 

110(a) and (i) and fail to address that a 

state- or district-issued variance has no 

effect on enforcing the underlying 

federal requirement unless the variance 

is submitted to and approved by EPA as 

a SIP revision. 

We proposed to disapprove the SIP 

revision for Rule 511.1 to avoid 

potential conflict with EPA’s 

independent authorities provided in 

CAA section 113, section 114 and 

elsewhere. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the basis for this 

rulemaking and on our evaluation of the 

submittal. 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES