Document ID: EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0644-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Approval of Missouri's Air Quality Implementation Plans; Americold Logistics, LLC 24-Hour Particulate Matter (PM10) National Ambient Air Quality Standard Consent Judgment.
Posted Date: 2016-01-28T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 18 (Thursday, January 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4886-4889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01660]

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

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

[[Page 4887]]

I. Background

    EPA's current health-based PM10 NAAQS was set in 1987 at 
a level of 150 [micro]g/m\3\ 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           24-Hour PM10
                                                            exceedance
                          Date                              ([micro]g/
                                                               m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [micro]g/m\3\. 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

[[Page 4888]]

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. Section 52.1320(d) is amended by adding entry (30) at the end of the 
table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

[[Page 4889]]

                            EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
          Name of source               Order/Permit No.    effective date    EPA Approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(30) Americold Logistics, LLC 24-   Consent Judgment 14AP-        4/27/14  1/28/16, [insert       ..............
 Hour Particulate Matter (PM10)      CC00036.                               Federal Register
 National Ambient Air Quality                                               citation].
 (NAAQS) Consent Judgment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-01660 Filed 1-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P