4884 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

paragraph 5–6.5a. This airspace action 

is not expected to cause any potentially 

significant environmental impacts, and 

no extraordinary circumstances exist 

that warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 6, 2015, and 

effective September 15, 2015, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA D Chico, CA [Modified] 

Chico Municipal Airport, CA 

(Lat. 39°47′43′′ N., long. 121°51′30′′ W.) 

Ranchaero Airport, Chico, CA 

(Lat. 39°43′10′′ N., long. 121°52′14′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL 

within a 4.1-mile radius of Chico Municipal 

Airport, excluding the portion within a 1- 

mile radius of Ranchaero Airport. This Class 

D airspace area is effective during the 

specific dates and times established in 

advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective 

date and time will thereafter be continuously 

published in the Airport/Facility Directory. 

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas 

Designated as an Extension to a Class D or 

Class E Surface Area. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA E4 Chico, CA [Removed] 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA E5 Chico, CA [Modified] 

Chico Municipal Airport, CA 

(Lat. 39°47′43′′ N., long. 121°51′30′′ W.) 

Ranchaero Airport, Chico, CA 

(Lat. 39°43′10′′ N., long. 121°52′14′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface bounded by a line 

beginning at lat. 39°43′57′′ N., long. 

121°45′28′′ W., clockwise along the Chico 

Municipal Airport 6-mile radius to lat. 

39°41′45′′ N., long. 121°50′42′′ W.; thence 

along the 174° bearing to lat. 39°43′38′′ N., 

long. 121°51′05′′ W., thence counterclockwise along the Ranchaero Airport 1- 

mile radius to lat. 39°43′50′′ N., long. 

121°53′12′′ W., thence along the 200° bearing 

to the Chico Municipal Airport 6-mile radius, 

thence clockwise to lat. 39°53′31′′ N., long. 

121°53′31′′ W.; thence to lat. 39°51′48′′ N., 

long. 121°52′04′′ W., clockwise along the 

Chico Municipal Airport 4.1-mile radius to 

lat. 39°45′40′′ N., long. 121°46′54′′ W.; thence 

to the point of beginning. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 

15, 2016. 

Tracey Johnson, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01502 Filed 1–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0366; FRL–9941–53– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Inver 

Hills SO2

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to 

the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Northern 

States Power Company’s Xcel EnergyInver Hills Generating Plant (Inver 

Hills), located in Inver Grove Heights, 

Minnesota. The revision, submitted by 

the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

(MPCA) on May 1, 2015, incorporates a 

more stringent limit for the sulfur 

content of the fuel used at the facility, 

and modifies the fuel analysis 

requirements to meet the more stringent 

limit. These revisions will not result in 

an increase in SO2 emissions at the 

facility. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

28, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse 

written comments by February 29, 2016. 

If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

rule in the Federal Register and inform 

the public that the rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0366 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, 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, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, 

hatten.charles@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What changes are being made to the SO2

SIP for Inver Hills? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

submission? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

The Inver Hills facility is a 440 

Megawatt peak demand electrical 

generation plant. The plant has six 

generation units, turbines EU 001–EU 

006, which can burn both natural gas 

and distillate fuel oil. In 1980, Inver 

Hills was identified by the state of 

Minnesota as a culpable source in the 

Pine Bend portion of the MinneapolisSt. Paul SO2 nonattainment area in 

Dakota County. On July 28, 1992, MPCA 

issued an administrative order for Inver 

Hills to address the source’s 

contribution to the nonattainment 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 4885 

problem. The SIP revision containing 

the administrative order was approved 

by EPA on September 9, 1994 (59 FR 

46553). The area was subsequently 

redesignated to attainment of the SO2

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) on May 13, 1997 (62 FR 

26230), and is now a maintenance area 

for SO2. 

On June 8, 2004 (69 FR 31891), EPA 

approved a Minnesota SO2 SIP revision, 

replacing the administrative order with 

Title I conditions for the Inver Hills 

facility. In addition, on December 5, 

2007 (72 FR 68508), EPA approved a 

Minnesota SO2 SIP revision, updating 

the Title I conditions for the Inver Hills 

facility. 

II. What changes are being made to the 

SO2 SIP for Inver Hills? 

On May 1, 2015, MPCA submitted a 

request to EPA to revise the Title I SIP 

conditions in the SO2 SIP for the six 

electric generating turbines at the Inver 

Hills facility. The SIP revision reduces 

the allowable sulfur content limit for all 

fuels delivered to the facility from 0.48 

percent by weight to 0.005 percent by 

weight. In addition, the SIP revision 

updates the requirements necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with this more 

stringent fuel limit. 

The Inver Hills SIP revision contains 

two methods for determining 

compliance with the sulfur limit for fuel 

oil. Method A requires Inver Hills to 

sample the fuel upon delivery to 

demonstrate compliance with the new 

lower fuel sulfur limit of 0.005 percent 

by weight. Method B requires the fuel 

supplier to provide a guarantee that the 

fuel oil has a sulfur content below a 

specific limit. If the fuel oil supplier 

provides that guarantee, Inver Hills is 

not required to conduct any additional 

sampling or analysis of the fuel oil. 

Since no sampling is required, the SIP 

revision reduces the sulfur content limit 

under Method B from 0.10 percent by 

weight to 0.0015 percent by weight. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

submission? 

The SIP revision submitted by 

Minnesota imposes more stringent 

limits on the sulfur content of the fuel 

used at the Inver Hills facility. In 

addition, the provisions for 

demonstrating compliance have been 

revised to reflect the more stringent fuel 

limits. A modeling analysis was not 

conducted for the Inver Hills because 

the SIP revision imposes more stringent 

SO2 emission limits at the facility, 

resulting in a decrease in SO2 emissions. 

Because the revision strengthens the 

existing SO2 SIP for Inver Hills, EPA 

deems the submittal approvable. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the request by 

Minnesota to revise the Title I SIP 

conditions in Minnesota’s SO2 SIP that 

apply to the Inver Hills facility. 

Specifically, EPA is approving into the 

SIP only those portions of Inver Hills’ 

Title V permit, No. 03700015–004, cited 

as ‘‘Title I Condition: State 

Implementation Plan for SO2.’’ These 

Title I SIP conditions replace the 

current SO2 SIP for Inver Hills. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective March 28, 2016 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by February 

29, 2016. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

If we do not receive any comments, this 

action will be effective March 28, 2016. 

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 Minnesota 

regulations described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the CAA 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). 

In addition, 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 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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