41838 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS—Continued 

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA Approval date Comments 

Section 182(f) NOX Exemptions 

1-hour ozone ......................................... Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area (Livingston, 

Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. 

Clair, 

Washtenaw, and 

Wayne Counties).

11/12/1993 ............ 8/10/1994, 59 FR 

40826.

1-hour ozone ......................................... Clinton, Ingham, 

Eaton, and Genesee Counties.

7/1/1994 and 7/8/

1994.

4/27/1995, 60 FR 

20644.

1-hour ozone ......................................... Kent, Ottawa, Muskegon, Allegan, 

Barry, Bay, 

Berrien, Branch, 

Calhoun, Cass, 

Clinton, Eaton, 

Gratiot, Genesee, Hillsdale, 

Ingham, Ionia, 

Jackson, Kalamazoo, 

Lenawee, Midland, Montcalm, 

St. Joseph, 

Saginaw, 

Shiawassee, and 

Van Buren 

Counties.

7/13/1994 .............. 1/26/1996, 61 FR 

2428.

1-hour ozone ......................................... Muskegon County 11/22/1995 ............ 9/26/1997, 62 FR 

50512.

1997 8-hour ozone ............................... Grand Rapids 

(Kent and Ottawa Counties), 

Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun, Kalamazoo, and Van 

Buren Counties), 

Lansing-East 

Lansing (Clinton, 

Eaton, and 

Ingham Counties), Benzie 

County, Huron 

County and 

Mason County.

1/17/2015 .............. 6/6/2006, 71 FR 

32448.

[FR Doc. 2016–15141 Filed 6–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2016–0302; FRL–9948–15- 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri; Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve portions of a 

November 20, 2015, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

from Missouri concerning allocations of 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

emission allowances. Under CSAPR, 

large electricity generating units in 

Missouri are subject to Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring 

the units to participate in CSAPR’s 

Federal trading program for annual 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

one of CSAPR’s two Federal trading 

programs for annual emissions of sulfur 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41839 

1Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 

Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 

8, 2011), (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 

52.39 and subparts AAAAA through DDDDD of 40 

CFR part 97). 

2EPA has proposed to replace the terms 

‘‘Transport Rule’’ and ‘‘TR’’ in the text of the Code 

of Federal Regulations with the updated terms 

‘‘Cross-State Air Pollution Rule’’ and ‘‘CSAPR.’’ 80 

FR 75706, 75759 (December 3, 2015). Except where 

otherwise noted, EPA uses the updated terms here. 

dioxide (SO2). This action approves 

Missouri’s adoption into its SIP of state 

regulations establishing statedetermined allocations to replace EPA’s 

default allocations to Missouri units of 

CSAPR allowances for annual NOX

emissions and annual SO2 emissions for 

2017 and later years. EPA is approving 

the SIP revision because it meets the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and EPA’s regulations for approval of an 

abbreviated SIP revision replacing 

EPA’s default allocations of CSAPR 

emission allowances with statedetermined allocations. Approval of this 

SIP revision does not alter any provision 

of CSAPR’s Federal trading programs for 

annual NOX emissions and annual SO2

emissions as applied to Missouri units 

other than the allowance allocation 

provisions, and the FIPs requiring the 

units to participate in those trading 

programs (as modified by the SIP 

revision) remain in place. The approval 

is being issued as a direct final rule 

without a prior proposed rule because 

EPA views it as uncontroversial and 

does not anticipate adverse comment. 

EPA is not acting at this time on the 

portion of Missouri’s SIP submittal 

concerning allocations of CSAPR 

allowances for ozone-season NOX

emissions. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective August 12, 2016, without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by July 28, 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–2016–0302, to http://

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: Mr. 

Larry Gonzalez, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, Air and Waste 

Management Division, EPA Region 7, 

11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 

66219; telephone number: (913) 551– 

7041; email address: gonzalez.larry@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

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

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPRRelated SIP Revisions 

III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPRRelated SIP Revisions 

IV. Missouri’s SIP Submittal and EPA’s 

Analysis 

A. Missouri’s SIP Submittal 

B. EPA’s Analysis of Missouri’s Submittal 

1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP 

Submittal 

2. Methodology Covering All Allowances 

Potentially Requiring Allocation 

3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will 

Not Exceed the State Budget 

4. Timely Submission of State-Determined 

Allocations to EPA 

5. No Changes to Allocations Already 

Submitted to EPA or Recorded 

6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal 

Trading Program Provisions 

V. EPA’s Action on Missouri’s Submittal 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve the portions of a November 20, 

2015, SIP submittal from Missouri 

concerning allocations of allowances 

used in the CSAPR1 Federal trading 

programs for annual emissions of NOX

and SO2. Large electricity generating 

units in Missouri are subject to CSAPR 

FIPs that require the units to participate 

in the Federal CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program and the Federal 

CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program.2

Each of CSAPR’s Federal trading 

programs includes default provisions 

governing the allocation among 

participating units of emission 

allowances used for compliance under 

that program. CSAPR also provides a 

process for the submission and approval 

of SIP revisions to replace EPA’s default 

allocations with state-determined 

allocations. 

The SIP revision approved in this 

action incorporates into Missouri’s SIP 

state regulations establishing statedetermined allowance allocations to 

replace EPA’s default allocations to 

Missouri units of CSAPR NOX Annual 

allowances and CSAPR SO2

Group 1 allowances issued for the 

control periods in 2017 and later years. 

EPA is approving the SIP revision 

because it meets the requirements of the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations for approval 

of an abbreviated SIP revision replacing 

EPA’s default allocations of CSAPR 

emission allowances with statedetermined allocations. Approval of this 

SIP revision does not alter any 

provisions of the CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program or the CSAPR SO2

Group 1 Trading Program as applied to 

Missouri units other than the allowance 

allocation provisions, and the FIPs 

requiring the units to participate in 

those programs (as modified by this SIP 

revision) remain in place. 

Large electricity generating units in 

Missouri are also subject to an 

additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to 

participate in the Federal CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Trading Program. While 

Missouri’s SIP submittal also seeks to 

replace the default allocations of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances to 

Missouri units, EPA is not acting on that 

portion of the SIP submittal at this time. 

Approval of this SIP revision 

concerning other CSAPR trading 

programs has no effect on the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program as 

applied to Missouri units, and the FIP 

requiring the units to participate in that 

program remains in place. 

Section II of this document 

summarizes relevant aspects of the 

CSAPR Federal trading programs and 

FIPs as well as the range of 

opportunities states have to submit SIP 

revisions to modify or replace the FIP 

requirements while continuing to rely 

on CSAPR’s trading programs to address 

the states’ obligations to mitigate 

interstate air pollution. Section III 

describes the specific conditions for 

approval of such SIP revisions. Section 

IV contains EPA’s analysis of Missouri’s 

SIP submittal, and Section V sets forth 

EPA’s action on the submittal. 

We are publishing this direct final 

rule without a prior proposed rule 

because we view this as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. However, in the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41840 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

3See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the 

ability to submit SIP revisions to meet their 

transport-related obligations using mechanisms 

other than the CSAPR Federal trading programs or 

integrated state trading programs. 

4CSAPR also provides for a third, more 

streamlined form of SIP revision that is effective 

only for control periods in 2016 and is not relevant 

here. See § 52.38(a)(3), (b)(3); § 52.39(d), (g). 

5 § 52.38(a)(4), (b)(4); § 52.39(e), (h). 

6 § 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5); § 52.39(f), (i). 

7 § 52.38(a)(6), (b)(6); § 52.39(j). 

8 § 52.38(a)(5)(iv) and (v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v) and (vi), 

(b)(6); § 52.39(f)(4) and (5), (i)(4) and (5), (j). 9 § 52.38(a)(7), (b)(7); § 52.39(k). 

10EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 

F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

Proposed Rules section of this Federal 

Register, we are publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the 

proposed rule to approve the SIP 

revision if adverse comments are 

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. 

II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPRRelated SIP Revisions 

EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 to 

address the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning 

interstate transport of air pollution. As 

amended, CSAPR requires twenty-eight 

Eastern states to limit their statewide 

emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order 

to mitigate transported air pollution 

unlawfully impacting other states’ 

ability to attain or maintain three 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS): The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 

1997 annual fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The emissions 

limitations are defined in terms of 

maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for 

emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, 

and/or ozone-season NOX by each 

covered state’s large electricity 

generating units. The budgets are 

implemented in two phases of generally 

increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 

budgets applying to emissions in 2015 

and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets 

applying to emissions in 2017 and later 

years. As a mechanism for achieving 

compliance with the emissions 

limitations, CSAPR established four 

Federal emissions trading programs: A 

program for annual NOX emissions, a 

program for ozone-season NOX

emissions, and two geographically 

separate programs for annual SO2

emissions. CSAPR also established up to 

three FIPs applicable to the large 

electricity generating units in each 

covered state. Each CSAPR FIP requires 

a state’s units to participate in one of the 

four CSAPR trading programs. 

CSAPR includes provisions under 

which states may submit and EPA will 

approve SIP revisions to modify or 

replace the CSAPR FIP requirements 

while allowing states to continue to 

meet their transport-related obligations 

using either CSAPR’s Federal emissions 

trading programs or state emissions 

trading programs integrated with the 

Federal programs.3 Through such a SIP 

revision, a state may replace EPA’s 

default provisions for allocating 

emission allowances among the state’s 

units, employing any state-selected 

methodology to allocate or auction the 

allowances, subject to timing conditions 

and limits on overall allowance 

quantities. In the case of CSAPR’s 

Federal trading program for ozoneseason NOX emissions (or an integrated 

state trading program), a state may also 

expand trading program applicability to 

include certain smaller electricity 

generating units. However, no emissions 

budget increases or other substantive 

changes to the trading program 

provisions are allowed. If a state wants 

to replace CSAPR FIP requirements with 

SIP requirements under which the 

state’s units participate in a state trading 

program that is integrated with and 

identical to the Federal trading program 

even as to the allocation and 

applicability provisions, the state may 

submit a SIP revision for that purpose 

as well. A state whose units are subject 

to multiple CSAPR FIPs and Federal 

trading programs may submit SIP 

revisions to modify or replace the 

requirements under either some or all of 

those FIPs. 

States can submit two basic forms of 

CSAPR-related SIP revisions effective 

for emissions control periods in 2017 or 

later years.4 Specific conditions for 

approval of each form of SIP revision 

are set forth in the CSAPR regulations, 

as described in Section III below. Under 

the first alternative—an ‘‘abbreviated’’ 

SIP revision—a state may submit a SIP 

revision that upon approval replaces the 

default allowance allocation and/or 

applicability provisions of a CSAPR 

Federal trading program for the state.5

Approval of an abbreviated SIP revision 

leaves the corresponding CSAPR FIP 

and all other provisions of the relevant 

Federal trading program in place for the 

state’s units. 

Under the second alternative—a 

‘‘full’’ SIP revision—a state may submit 

a SIP revision that upon approval 

replaces a CSAPR Federal trading 

program for the state with a state trading 

program integrated with the Federal 

trading program, so long as the state 

trading program is substantively 

identical to the Federal trading program 

or does not substantively differ from the 

Federal trading program except as 

discussed above with regard to the 

allowance allocation and/or 

applicability provisions.6 For purposes 

of a full SIP revision, a state may either 

adopt state rules with complete trading 

program language, incorporate the 

Federal trading program language into 

its state rules by reference (with 

appropriate conforming changes), or 

employ a combination of these 

approaches. 

The CSAPR regulations identify 

several important consequences and 

limitations associated with approval of 

a full SIP revision. First, upon EPA’s 

approval of a full SIP revision as 

correcting the deficiency in the state’s 

SIP that was the basis for a particular 

CSAPR FIP, the obligation to participate 

in the corresponding CSAPR Federal 

trading program is automatically 

eliminated for units subject to the state’s 

jurisdiction without the need for a 

separate EPA withdrawal action, so long 

as EPA’s approval of the SIP is full and 

unconditional.7 Second, approval of a 

full SIP revision does not terminate the 

obligation to participate in the 

corresponding CSAPR Federal trading 

program for any units located in any 

Indian country within the borders of the 

state, and if and when a unit is located 

in Indian country within a state’s 

borders, EPA may modify the SIP 

approval to exclude from the SIP, and 

include in the surviving CSAPR FIP 

instead, certain trading program 

provisions that apply jointly to units in 

the state and to units in Indian country 

within the state’s borders.8 Finally, if at 

the time a full SIP revision is approved 

EPA has already started recording 

allocations of allowances for a given 

control period to a state’s units, the 

Federal trading program provisions 

authorizing EPA to complete the process 

of allocating and recording allowances 

for that control period to those units 

will continue to apply, unless EPA’s 

approval of the SIP revision provides 

otherwise.9

Certain CSAPR Phase 2 emissions 

budgets have been remanded to EPA for 

reconsideration.10 However, the CSAPR 

trading programs remain in effect and 

all CSAPR emissions budgets likewise 

remain in effect pending EPA final 

action to address the remands. None of 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41841 

11Litigation concerning EPA’s supplemental rule 

establishing the requirement for Missouri units to 

participate in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Trading Program is currently being held in 

abeyance. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. EPA, 

No. 12–1023 (D.C. Cir. filed January 13, 2012). 12 80 FR 75706, 75710, 75757 (December 3, 2015). 

13 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(vi), (b)(4)(iii), 

(b)(5)(vii); § 52.39(e)(2), (f)(6), (h)(2), (i)(6). 

14 In the context of the approval conditions for 

CSAPR-related SIP revisions, an ‘‘existing unit’’ is 

a unit for which EPA has determined default 

allowance allocations (which could be allocations 

of zero allowances) in the rulemakings establishing 

and amending CSAPR. A spreadsheet showing 

EPA’s default allocations to existing units is posted 

at www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/techinfo.html. 

15 § 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(ii); 

§ 52.39(e)(1), (f)(1), (h)(1), (i)(1). 

16See §§ 97.412(b)(10)(ii), 97.512(b)(10)(ii), 

97.612(b)(10)(ii), 97.712(b)(10)(ii). 

17 § 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(5)(i)(A), (b)(4)(ii)(A), 

(b)(5)(ii)(A); § 52.39(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i), 

(i)(1)(i). 

18 § 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and (C), (a)(5)(i)(B) and (C), 

(b)(4)(ii)(B) and (C), (b)(5)(ii)(B) and (C); 

§ 52.39(e)(1)(ii) and (iii), (f)(1)(ii) and (iii), (h)(1)(ii) 

and (iii), (i)(1)(ii) and (iii). 

19 § 52.38(a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(5)(i)(D), (b)(4)(ii)(D), 

(b)(5)(ii)(D); § 52.39(e)(1)(iv), (f)(1)(iv), (h)(1)(iv), 

(i)(1)(iv). 

the CSAPR emissions budgets 

applicable to Missouri units has been 

remanded.11

In 2015, EPA proposed to update 

CSAPR to address Eastern states’ 

interstate air pollution mitigation 

obligations with regard to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Among other things, the 

proposed rule would amend the Phase 

2 emissions budget applicable to 

Missouri units under the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Trading Program and 

would make technical corrections and 

nomenclature changes throughout the 

CSAPR regulations, including the 

CSAPR FIPs at 40 CFR part 52 and the 

CSAPR Federal trading program 

regulations for annual NOX, ozoneseason NOX, and SO2 emissions at 40 

CFR part 97.12

III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPRRelated SIP Revisions 

Each CSAPR-related abbreviated or 

full SIP revision must meet the 

following general submittal conditions: 

• Timeliness and completeness of SIP 

submittal. If a state wants to replace the 

default allowance allocation or 

applicability provisions of a CSAPR 

Federal trading program, the complete 

SIP revision must be submitted to EPA 

by December 1 of the year before the 

deadlines described below for 

submitting allocation or auction 

amounts to EPA for the first control 

period for which the state wants to 

replace the default allocation and/or 

applicability provisions.13 (The SIP 

submission deadline is inoperative in 

the case of a SIP revision that seeks only 

to replace a CSAPR FIP and Federal 

trading program with a SIP and a 

substantively identical state trading 

program integrated with the Federal 

trading program.) The SIP submittal 

completeness criteria in section 2.1 of 

appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 also 

apply. 

In addition to the general submittal 

conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated 

or full SIP seeking to address the 

allocation or auction of emission 

allowances must meet the following 

further conditions: 

• Methodology covering all 

allowances potentially requiring 

allocation. For each Federal trading 

program addressed by a SIP revision, 

the SIP revision’s allowance allocation 

or auction methodology must replace 

both the Federal program’s default 

allocations to existing units 14 at 40 CFR 

97.411(a), 97.511(a), 97.611(a), or 

97.711(a), as applicable, and the Federal 

trading program’s provisions for 

allocating allowances from the new unit 

set-aside (NUSA) for the state at 40 CFR 

97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a), 97.511(b)(1) 

and 97.512(a), 97.611(b)(1) and 

97.612(a), or 97.711(b)(1) and 97.712(a), 

as applicable.15 In the case of a state 

with Indian country within its borders, 

while the SIP revision may neither alter 

nor assume the Federal program’s 

provisions for administering the Indian 

country NUSA for the state, the SIP 

revision must include procedures 

addressing any the disposition of 

otherwise unallocated allowances from 

an Indian country NUSA that may be 

made available for allocation by the 

state after EPA has carried out the 

Indian country NUSA allocation 

procedures.16

• Assurance that total allocations will 

not exceed the state budget. For each 

Federal trading program addressed by a 

SIP revision, the total amount of 

allowances auctioned or allocated for 

each control period under the SIP 

revision (prior to the addition by EPA of 

any unallocated allowances from any 

Indian country NUSA for the state) may 

not exceed the state’s emissions budget 

for the control period less the sum of the 

amount of any Indian country NUSA for 

the state for the control period and any 

allowances already allocated to the 

state’s units for the control period and 

recorded by EPA.17 Under its SIP 

revision, a state is free to not allocate 

allowances to some or all potentially 

affected units, to allocate or auction 

allowances to entities other than 

potentially affected units, or to allocate 

or auction fewer than the maximum 

permissible quantity of allowances and 

retire the remainder. 

• Timely submission of statedetermined allocations to EPA. The SIP 

revision must require the state to submit 

to EPA the amounts of any allowances 

allocated or auctioned to each unit for 

each control period (other than 

allowances initially set aside in the 

state’s allocation or auction process and 

later allocated or auctioned to such 

units from the set-aside amount) by the 

following deadlines.18 Note that the 

submission deadlines differ for amounts 

allocated or auctioned to units 

considered existing units for CSAPR 

purposes and amounts allocated or 

auctioned to other units. 

Units Year of the control period Deadline for submission to EPA of allocations or auction results 

Existing ......... 2017 and 2018 .......................................... June 1, 2016. 

2019 and 2020 .......................................... June 1, 2017. 

2021 and 2022 .......................................... June 1, 2018. 

2023 and later years ................................. June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period. 

Other ............ All years .................................................... July 1 of the year of the control period. 

• No changes to allocations already 

submitted to EPA or recorded. The SIP 

revision must not provide for any 

change to the amounts of allowances 

allocated or auctioned to any unit after 

those amounts are submitted to EPA or 

any change to any allowance allocation 

determined and recorded by EPA under 

the Federal trading program 

regulations.19

• No other substantive changes to 

Federal trading program provisions. The 

SIP revision may not substantively 

change any other trading program 

provisions, except in the case of a SIP 

revision that also expands program 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41842 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

20 § 52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), (b)(5); § 52.39(e), (f), 

(h), (i). 

21 § 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(iii); 

§ 52.39(e)(1), (f)(2), (h)(1), (i)(2). 

22 § 52.38(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(i). 

23 § 52.38(b)(4), (b)(5). 

24 § 52.38(a)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv); § 52.39(f)(3), (i)(3). 

25 § 52.38(a)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(v); § 52.39(f)(4), (i)(4). 

26 76 FR 48208, 48213 (August 8, 2011). 

27 76 FR 80760, 80763 (December 27, 2011). 

28 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2), (b)(2); § 52.39(b); § 52.1326; 

§ 52.1327. 29 80 FR 51131 (August 24, 2015). 

applicability as described below.20 Any 

new definitions adopted in the SIP 

revision (in addition to the Federal 

trading program’s definitions) may 

apply only for purposes of the SIP 

revision’s allocation or auction 

provisions.21

In addition to the general submittal 

conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated 

or full SIP revision seeking to expand 

applicability under the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Trading Program (or an 

integrated state trading program) must 

meet the following further conditions: 

• Only electricity generating units 

with nameplate capacity of at least 15 

MWe. The SIP revision may expand 

applicability only to additional fossil 

fuel-fired boilers or combustion turbines 

serving generators producing electricity 

for sale, and only by lowering the 

generator nameplate capacity threshold 

used to determine whether a particular 

boiler or combustion turbine serving a 

particular generator is a potentially 

affected unit. The nameplate capacity 

threshold adopted in the SIP revision 

may not be less than 15 MWe.22

• No other substantive changes to 

Federal trading program provisions. The 

SIP revision may not substantively 

change any other trading program 

provisions, except in the case of a SIP 

revision that also addresses the 

allocation or auction of emission 

allowances as described above.23

In addition to the general submittal 

conditions and the other applicable 

conditions described above, a CSAPRrelated full SIP revision must meet the 

following further conditions: 

• Complete, substantively identical 

trading program provisions. The SIP 

revision must adopt complete state 

trading program regulations 

substantively identical to the Federal 

trading program regulations at 40 CFR 

97.402 through 97.435, 97.502 through 

97.535, 97.602 through 97.635, or 

97.702 through 97.735, as applicable, 

except as described above in the case of 

a SIP revision that seeks to replace the 

default allowance allocation and/or 

applicability provisions. 

• Only non-substantive substitutions 

for the term ‘‘State.’’ The SIP revision 

may substitute the name of the state for 

the term ‘‘State’’ as used in the Federal 

trading program regulations, but only to 

the extent that EPA determines that the 

substitutions do not substantively 

change the trading program 

regulations.24

• Exclusion of provisions addressing 

units in Indian country. The SIP 

revision may not include references to 

or impose requirements on any unit in 

any Indian country within the state’s 

borders and must not include the 

Federal trading program provisions 

governing allocation of allowances from 

any Indian country NUSA for the 

state.25

IV. Missouri’s SIP Submittal and EPA’s 

Analysis 

A. Missouri’s SIP Submittal 

In the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA 

determined that air pollution 

transported from Missouri unlawfully 

affected other states’ ability to attain or 

maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.26

In a supplemental rulemaking, EPA 

determined that air pollution 

transported from Missouri also 

unlawfully affected other states’ ability 

to attain and maintain the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS.27 Missouri units meeting the 

CSAPR applicability criteria are 

consequently subject to CSAPR FIPs 

that require participation in the CSAPR 

NOX Annual Trading Program, the 

CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program, 

and the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Trading Program.28

On November 20, 2015, Missouri 

submitted to EPA an abbreviated SIP 

revision that, if all portions were 

approved, would replace the default 

allowance allocation provisions of all 

three CSAPR trading programs for the 

state’s EGUs for the control periods in 

2017 and later years with provisions 

establishing state-determined 

allocations for those control periods but 

that would leave the corresponding 

CSAPR FIPs and all other provisions of 

the trading programs in place. The SIP 

submittal generally consists of three 

duly adopted state rules, 10 CSR 10– 

6.372 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

Annual NOX Trading Allowance 

Allocations), 10 CSR 10–6.374 (CrossState Air Pollution Rule Ozone Season 

NOX Trading Allowance Allocations), 

and 10 CSR 10–6.376 (Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule Annual SO2 Trading 

Allowances Allocations). The three state 

rules are substantively identical except 

that each addresses a different CSAPR 

Federal trading program and allocates a 

different total quantity of allowances. 

Each rule contains a table establishing 

specific amounts of allowances to be 

allocated for each control period in 2017 

and later years to specified Missouri 

electricity generating units under the 

applicable CSAPR trading program. 

Each rule also establishes a NUSA for 

the applicable program for each control 

period and sets forth a procedure for 

allocating allowances from the NUSA to 

qualifying Missouri units. 

The SIP revision was submitted to 

EPA by a letter from the Director of the 

Missouri Air Pollution Control Program. 

The letter and its enclosures describe 

steps taken by Missouri to provide 

public notice prior to adoption of the 

state rules. 

In this rule, EPA is taking action on 

the portions of Missouri’s SIP submittal 

relating to the CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program and the CSAPR SO2

Group 1 Trading Program. EPA is not 

taking action at this time on the portion 

of the SIP submittal relating to the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading 

Program. As noted in section II above, 

EPA has proposed to update CSAPR to 

address Eastern states’ interstate air 

pollution mitigation obligations with 

regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 

proposal would reduce the ozoneseason NOX emissions budgets for 

control periods in 2017 and later years 

for a number of states, including 

Missouri. Action on the portion of 

Missouri’s SIP submittal addressing 

allocations of ozone-season NOX

allowances would be premature while 

the proposed update is pending because 

there is a foreseeable potential conflict 

between the total amount of allowances 

that would be allocated to Missouri 

units under Missouri’s state-determined 

allocation provisions, which are based 

on Missouri’s current budget, and the 

total amount of allowances that could 

permissibly be allocated to the units 

under a final updated budget. 

EPA has previously approved a 

separate Missouri SIP revision replacing 

the default allowance allocation 

provisions of the CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program and the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Trading Program for 

Missouri existing units for the control 

period in 2016.29

B. EPA’s Analysis of Missouri’s 

Submittal 

As described in section IV.A above, at 

this time EPA is taking action on the 

portions of Missouri’s SIP submittal 

relating to the CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program and the CSAPR SO2

Group 1 Trading Program but not the 

portion of the SIP submittal relating to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41843 

30 40 CFR 97.410(a)(11)(iv), 97.610(a)(7)(iv). 

the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading 

Program. The analysis discussed in this 

section addresses only the portions of 

Missouri’s SIP submittal on which EPA 

is taking action at this time. For 

simplicity, throughout this section EPA 

refers to the portions of the submittal on 

which EPA is taking action as ‘‘the 

submittal’’ or ‘‘the SIP revision’’ without 

repeating the qualification that at this 

time EPA is analyzing and acting on 

only portions of the SIP submittal. 

1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP 

Submittal 

Missouri’s SIP revision seeks to 

establish state-determined allocations of 

CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and 

CSAPR SO2 Group 1 allowances for the 

control periods in 2017 and later years. 

Under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and 

52.39(e)(1)(ii), the deadline for 

submission of state-determined 

allocations for the 2017 and 2018 

control periods is June 1, 2016, which 

under §§ 52.38(a)(4)(ii) and 52.39(e)(2) 

makes December 1, 2015, the deadline 

for submission to EPA of a complete SIP 

revision establishing state-determined 

allocations for those control periods. 

Missouri submitted its SIP revision to 

EPA by a letter dated and delivered 

electronically on November 20, 2015, 

and EPA has determined that the 

submittal complies with the applicable 

minimum completeness criteria in 

section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 

51. Because Missouri’s SIP revision was 

timely submitted and meets the 

applicable completeness criteria, it 

meets the condition under 40 CFR 

52.38(a)(4)(ii) and 52.39(e)(2) for timely 

submission of a complete SIP revision. 

2. Methodology Covering All 

Allowances Potentially Requiring 

Allocation 

Paragraphs 10 CSR 10–6.372(3) and 

10 CSR 10–6.376(3) of the Missouri 

rules provide that the allowance 

allocation methodology adopted by 

Missouri in the SIP revision replaces the 

provisions of 40 CFR 97.411(a) and 

97.611(a), respectively, thereby 

addressing all allowances that under the 

default allocation provisions for the 

Federal trading programs would be 

allocated to units considered existing 

units for CSAPR purposes (prior to 

allocation of any allowances set aside 

during the initial allocation process). 

The same Missouri rule paragraphs also 

provide that the state’s allocation 

methodology replaces the provisions of 

40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a) and 

the provisions of 40 CFR 97.611(b)(1) 

and 97.612(a), respectively, thereby 

addressing allocation of allowances in 

the NUSAs established for Missouri 

under the Federal trading programs. The 

CSAPR Federal trading program 

regulations do not establish any Indian 

country NUSAs for Missouri. The 

allocations provisions in the Missouri 

rules therefore enable Missouri’s SIP 

revision to meet the condition under 40 

CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i) and 52.39(e)(1) that 

the state’s allocation or auction 

methodology must cover all allowances 

potentially requiring allocation by the 

state. 

3. Assurance That Total Allocations 

Will Not Exceed the State Budget 

Paragraphs 10 CSR 10–6.372(3)(A)1. 

and 10 CSR 10–6.376(3)(A)1. of the 

Missouri rules provide for allowance 

allocations under each trading program 

to be made to specified units (including 

all Missouri units considered existing 

units for CSAPR purposes) in fixed 

amounts as set forth in tables referred to 

as ‘‘Table 1’’ in the state rules. The 

totals of the allowances allocated for 

each control period according to the two 

tables (45,818 CSAPR NOX Annual 

allowances and 160,959 CSAPR SO2

Group 1 allowances) are less than 

Missouri’s state budgets for the control 

periods in 2017 and later years under 

the respective trading programs (48,743 

CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and 

165,941 CSAPR SO2 Group 1 

allowances).30 Paragraphs 10 CSR 10– 

6.372(3)(B)3.B. and 10 CSR 10– 

6.376(3)(B)3.B. of the Missouri rules 

establish NUSAs for each trading 

program, allocating to each NUSA for 

each control period an amount of 

allowances equal to the state budget for 

the trading program minus the total 

amount of allowances allocated 

according to the table for that trading 

program. As noted above, the CSAPR 

Federal trading program regulations do 

not establish Indian country NUSAs for 

Missouri. The only allowances available 

for allocation to Missouri units are 

therefore allowances allocated under the 

Missouri rules, and the only such 

allowances, which necessarily sum to 

the state budgets, are the allowances 

allocated according to the tables and the 

allowances allocated from the NUSAs. 

EPA has not yet allocated or recorded 

CSAPR allowances for the control 

periods in 2017 or later years. The 

allocation methodology in Missouri’s 

SIP revision therefore meets the 

condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A) 

and 52.39(e)(1)(i) that, for each trading 

program, the total amount of allowances 

allocated under the SIP revision (before 

the addition of any otherwise 

unallocated allowances from an Indian 

country NUSA) may not exceed the 

state’s budget for the control period less 

the amount of the Indian country NUSA 

for the state and any allowances already 

allocated and recorded by EPA. 

4. Timely Submission of StateDetermined Allocations to EPA 

The allocation tables in the Missouri 

rules establish the primary allowance 

allocations for all Missouri units that are 

considered existing units for CSAPR 

purposes. Paragraphs 10 CSR 10– 

6.372(3)(A)1.A. through D. and 10 CSR 

10–6.376(3)(A)1.A. through D. of the 

Missouri rules provide for the statedetermined allocations established 

according to the tables to be submitted 

to EPA by the following deadlines: 

Allocations for the control periods in 

2017 and 2018, by June 1, 2016; 

allocations for the control periods in 

2019 and 2020, by June 1, 2017; 

allocations for the control periods in 

2021 and 2022, by June 1, 2018; and 

allocations for later control periods, by 

June 1 of the fourth year before the year 

of the control period. These submission 

deadlines match the deadlines under 40 

CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and 52.39(e)(1)(ii) 

described in Section III above for 

allocations to existing units. Paragraphs 

10 CSR 10–6.372(3)(B)1. and 10– 

6.376(3)(B)1. of the Missouri rules 

provide for the state-determined 

allowance allocations to other units 

from the NUSAs for each control period 

to be submitted to EPA by July 1 of the 

year of the control period. These 

submission deadlines match the 

submission deadlines under 40 CFR 

52.38(a)(4)(i)(C) and 52.39(e)(1)(iii) 

described in section III above for 

allocations to other units. Missouri’s SIP 

revision therefore meets the conditions 

under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and (C) 

and 52.39(e)(1)(ii) and (iii) requiring 

that the SIP revision provide for 

submission of state-determined 

allowance allocations to EPA by the 

deadlines specified in those provisions. 

5. No Changes to Allocations Already 

Submitted to EPA or Recorded 

The Missouri rules include no 

provisions allowing alteration of 

allocations after the allocation amounts 

have been provided to EPA and no 

provisions allowing alteration of any 

allocations made and recorded by EPA 

under the Federal trading program 

regulations, thereby meeting the 

condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(D) 

and 52.39(e)(1)(iv). 

6. No Other Substantive Changes to 

Federal Trading Program Provisions 

Besides the provisions addressing 

allowance allocations discussed above, 

the Missouri rules contain certain 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41844 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

31EPA has proposed to make certain technical 

corrections to the CSAPR FIP and Federal trading 

program regulations in order to more accurately 

reflect EPA’s intent as described in the CSAPR 

rulemaking and has also proposed to replace ‘‘TR’’ 

with ‘‘CSAPR’’ throughout the regulations (for 

example, ‘‘TR NOX Annual unit’’ would become 

‘‘CSAPR NOX Annual unit’’). See 80 FR 75706, 

75758. Because the proposed technical corrections 

merely clarify and do not change EPA’s 

interpretations, where the proposed corrections 

would apply to a provision incorporated by 

reference in the Missouri rules, EPA would 

interpret the Missouri rules as reflecting the 

corrections. Further, EPA anticipates that if the 

proposed nomenclature updates are finalized, the 

final CSAPR Federal regulations would explicitly 

provide that terms that include ‘‘CSAPR’’ 

encompass otherwise identical terms in approved 

SIP revisions that include ‘‘TR’’. 

definitions. Paragraphs 10 CSR 10– 

6.372(2)(A) and 10 CSR 10–6.376(2)(A) 

incorporate by reference the Federal 

trading program definitions in 40 CFR 

97.402 and 97.403 and the definitions in 

40 CFR 97.602 and 97.603, respectively. 

Paragraphs 10 CSR 6.372(2)(B) and 10 

CSR 10–6.376(2)(B) define a single term 

which is not defined in the Federal 

trading program regulations 

(‘‘notification’’), and paragraphs 10 CSR 

6.372(2)(C) and 10 CSR 10–6.376(2)(C) 

refer to another Missouri rule for 

definitions of otherwise undefined 

terms. These definition provisions do 

not make substantive changes to the 

Federal trading program provisions.31

EPA therefore determines that 

Missouri’s SIP revision meets the 

condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4) and 

52.39(e) of making no substantive 

changes to the Federal trading program 

regulations beyond the provisions 

addressing allowance allocations. 

V. EPA’s Action on Missouri’s 

Submittal 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve the portions of Missouri’s 

November 20, 2015, SIP submittal 

concerning allocations to Missouri units 

of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and 

CSAPR SO2 Group 1 allowances for the 

control periods in 2017 and later years. 

The approved revision adopts into the 

SIP the rules codified in Missouri’s 

regulations at 10 CSR 10–6.372 (CrossState Air Pollution Rule Annual NOX

Trading Allowance Allocations) and 10 

CSR 10–6.376 (Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule Annual SO2 Trading Allowances 

Allocations). Following this approval, 

allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual 

allowances to Missouri units for the 

control periods in 2017 and later years 

will be made according to the 

provisions of Missouri’s SIP instead of 

CSAPR’s default allocation provisions at 

40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.411(b)(1), and 

97.412(a), and allocations of CSAPR SO2

Group 1 allowances to Missouri units 

for the control periods in 2017 and later 

years will be made according to the 

provisions of Missouri’s SIP instead of 

CSAPR’s default allocation provisions at 

40 CFR 97.611(a), 97.611(b)(1), and 

97.612(a). Approval of this SIP revision 

does not alter any provision of the 

CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program or 

the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading 

Program as applied to Missouri units 

other than the allowance allocation 

provisions, and the FIPs requiring the 

units to participate in those programs 

(as modified by this SIP revision) 

remain in place. EPA is approving the 

indicated portions of the SIP submittal 

because they meet the requirements of 

the CAA and EPA’s regulations for 

approval of an abbreviated SIP revision 

replacing EPA’s default allocations of 

CSAPR emission allowances with statedetermined allocations, as discussed in 

section IV above. 

Large electricity generating units in 

Missouri are also subject to an 

additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to 

participate in the Federal CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Trading Program. While 

Missouri’s SIP submittal also seeks to 

replace the default allocations of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances to 

Missouri units, EPA is not acting on that 

portion of the SIP submittal at this time. 

Approval of this SIP revision 

concerning other CSAPR trading 

programs has no effect on the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program as 

applied to Missouri units, and the FIP 

requiring the units to participate in that 

program remains in place. 

VI. 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 Regulations 

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). 

VII. 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 

this rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards; 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41845 

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 August 29, 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, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: June 16, 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. In § 52.1320: 

■ a. Revise the section heading. 

■ b. In the table in paragraph (c), under 

Chapter 6, add entries ‘‘10–6.372’’ and 

‘‘10–6.376’’ in numerical order. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c)* * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

*******

Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of 

Missouri 

*******

10–6.372 ........... Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual NOX Trading 

Allowance Allocations.

12/30/15 6/28/16 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

10–6.376 ........... Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual SO2 Trading 

Allowance Allocations.

12/30/15 6/28/16 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–15048 Filed 6–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 435 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2014–0598; FRL–9947–87– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF35 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Oil and Gas 

Extraction Point Source Category 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is publishing a final 

Clean Water Act (CWA) regulation that 

protects human health, the environment 

and the operational integrity of publicly 

owned treatment works (POTWs) by 

establishing pretreatment standards that 

prevent the discharge of pollutants in 

wastewater from onshore 

unconventional oil and gas (UOG) 

extraction facilities to POTWs. UOG 

extraction wastewater can be generated 

in large quantities and contains 

constituents that are potentially harmful 

to human health and the environment. 

Certain UOG extraction wastewater 

constituents are not typical of POTW 

influent wastewater and can be 

discharged, untreated, from the POTW 

to the receiving stream; can disrupt the 

operation of the POTW (e.g., by 

inhibiting biological treatment); can 

accumulate in biosolids (sewage 

sludge), limiting their beneficial use; 

and can facilitate the formation of 

harmful disinfection by-products 

(DBPs). Based on the information 

collected by EPA, the requirements of 

this final rule reflect current industry 

practices for onshore unconventional oil 

and gas extraction facilities. Therefore, 

EPA does not project that the final rule 

will impose any costs or lead to 

pollutant removals, but will ensure that 

current industry best practice is 

maintained over time. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on 

August 29, 2016. In accordance with 40 

CFR part 23, this regulation shall be 

considered issued for purposes of 

judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on 

July 12, 2016. Under section 509(b)(1) of 

the CWA, judicial review of this 

regulation can be had only by filing a 

petition for review in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals within 120 days after the 

regulation is considered issued for 

purposes of judicial review. Under 

section 509(b)(2), the requirements in 

this regulation may not be challenged 

later in civil or criminal proceedings 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES