42256 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone lasting less than 1 hour that will 

prohibit entry within 500 yards of the 

Veterans Pier. Normally such actions are 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 

2–1 of Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist and 

Categorical Exclusion Determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 165.T07–0347 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T07–0347 Safety Zone; Fourth of 

July Fireworks Murrells Inlet, SC. 

(a) This rule establishes a safety zone 

on all Atlantic Ocean waters within a 

500 yard radius of Veterans Pier, from 

which fireworks will be launched. 

(b) Definition. As used in this section, 

‘‘designated representative’’ means 

Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, 

including Coast Guard coxswains, petty 

officers, and other officers operating 

Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, 

and local officers designated by or 

assisting the Captain of the Port 

Charleston in the enforcement of the 

regulated areas. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the regulated area 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Charleston or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, or remain within 

the regulated area may contact the 

Captain of the Port Charleston by 

telephone at 843–740–7050, or a 

designated representative via VHF radio 

on channel 16, to request authorization. 

If authorization to enter, transit through, 

or remain within the regulated area is 

granted by the Captain of the Port 

Charleston or a designated 

representative, all persons and vessels 

receiving such authorization must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Enforcement period. This rule will 

be enforced on July 4, 2016 from 9:15 

p.m. until 10 p.m. 

Dated: June 24, 2016. 

B.D. Falk, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15415 Filed 6–28–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2016–0303; FRL–9948–13– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Kansas; 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 a December 1, 2015, 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittal from Kansas concerning 

allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) emission allowances. 

Under CSAPR, large electricity 

generating units in Kansas are subject to 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

requiring the units to participate in 

CSAPR’s Federal trading program for 

annual emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX). This action approves Kansas’s 

adoption into its SIP of state regulations 

establishing state-determined 

allocations to replace EPA’s default 

allocations to Kansas units of CSAPR 

allowances for annual NOX emissions 

for 2017 through 2019. 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 program for 

annual NOX emissions as applied to 

Kansas units other than the allowance 

allocation provisions, and the FIP 

requiring the units to participate in the 

trading program (as modified by the SIP 

revision) remains 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. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective August 15, 2016, without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by July 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–2016–0303, 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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 42257 

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. 

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. Kansas’s SIP Submittal and EPA’s 

Analysis 

A. Kansas’s SIP Submittal 

B. EPA’s Analysis of Kansas’ 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 Kansas’ Submittal 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve a revision to the SIP for Kansas 

concerning allocations of allowances 

used in the CSAPR1 Federal trading 

program for annual emissions of NOX. 

Large electricity generating units in 

Kansas are subject to a CSAPR FIP that 

requires the units to participate in the 

Federal CSAPR NOX Annual 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 Kansas’ SIP 

state regulations establishing statedetermined allowance allocations to 

replace EPA’s default allocations to 

Kansas units of CSAPR NOX Annual 

allowances issued for the control 

periods in 2017 through 2019. 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 provision 

of the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading 

Program as applied to Kansas units 

other than the allowance allocation 

provisions, and the FIP requiring those 

units to participate in the program (as 

modified by this SIP revision) remains 

in place. Because the SIP revision 

addresses only the control periods in 

2017 through 2019, absent submission 

and approval of a further SIP revision, 

allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual 

allowances for control periods in 2020 

and later years will be made pursuant to 

the default allocation provisions. 

Large electricity generating units in 

Kansas are also subject to an additional 

CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate 

in the Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program. Kansas’s SIP submittal 

does not seek to replace the default 

allocations of CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

allowances to Kansas units. Approval of 

this SIP revision concerning another 

CSAPR trading program has no effect on 

the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading 

Program as applied to Kansas 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 Kansas’ 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

42258 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 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)–(v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v)–(vi), (b)(6); 

§ 52.39(f)(4)–(5), (i)(4)–(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). 

11 80 FR 75706, 75710, 75757 (December 3, 2015). 

12 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). 

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. Neither 

of the CSAPR emissions budgets 

applicable to Kansas units has been 

remanded. 

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 establish a FIP 

requiring Kansas units to participate in 

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, 

ozone-season NOX, and SO2 emissions 

at 40 CFR part 97.11

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.12 (This 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: 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 42259 

13 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. 

14 § 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(ii); 

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

15See §§ 97.412(b)(10)(ii), 97.512(b)(10)(ii), 

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

16 § 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). 

17 § 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B)–(C), (a)(5)(i)(B)–(C), 

(b)(4)(ii)(B)–(C), (b)(5)(ii)(B)–(C); § 52.39(e)(1)(ii)– 

(iii), (f)(1)(ii)–(iii), (h)(1)(ii)–(iii), (i)(1)(ii)–(iii). 

18 § 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). 

19 § 52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), (b)(5); § 52.39(e), (f), 

(h), (i). 

20 § 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(iii); 

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

21 § 52.38(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(i). 

22 § 52.38(b)(4), (b)(5). 

• 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 13 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.14 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 the disposition of any 

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.15

• 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.16 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.17 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.18

• 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 

applicability as described below.19 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.20

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.21

• 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.22

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 complete 

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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

42260 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

23 § 52.38(a)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv); § 52.39(f)(3), (i)(3). 

24 § 52.38(a)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(v); § 52.39(f)(4), (i)(4). 

25 76 FR 48208, 48213 (August 8, 2011). 

26 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2); § 52.39(c); § 52.882(a); 

§ 52.883. 27 80 FR 50789 (August 21, 2015). 28See 40 CFR 97.410(a)(6)(iv), (a)(6)(vi). 

change the trading program 

regulations.23

• 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.24

IV. Kansas’s SIP Submittal and EPA’s 

Analysis 

A. Kansas’s SIP Submittal 

In the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA 

determined that air pollution 

transported from Kansas unlawfully 

affected other states’ ability to attain or 

maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.25 Kansas units meeting the 

CSAPR applicability criteria are 

consequently subject to CSAPR FIPs 

that require participation in the CSAPR 

NOX Annual Trading Program and the 

CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program.26

On December 1, 2015, Kansas 

submitted to EPA an abbreviated SIP 

revision that, if approved, would 

replace the default allowance allocation 

provisions of the CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program for the state’s EGUs for 

the control periods in 2017 through 

2019 with provisions establishing statedetermined allocations for those control 

periods but that would leave the 

corresponding CSAPR FIP and all other 

provisions of that trading program in 

place. The SIP submittal generally 

consists of a duly adopted state rule, 

K.A.R. 28–19–274 (Nitrogen oxides; 

allocations), which in turn adopts by 

reference a document entitled ‘‘TR NOX

annual allowance allocations for 2017, 

2018, and 2019,’’ dated July 17, 2015. 

The latter document contains tables 

establishing fixed amounts of 

allowances to be allocated to specified 

Kansas electricity generating units 

under the provisions of the state rule. 

For each of the years 2017, 2018, and 

2019, there is a table with allocations of 

all allowances in the Kansas budget 

other than allowances in the Indian 

country NUSA for Kansas. For each of 

those years there is a second table with 

potential allocations to the same units of 

otherwise unallocated allowances from 

the Indian country NUSA for Kansas if 

all of those allowances should be made 

available by EPA for state allocation. 

The rule also includes provisions for 

computing potential allocations to the 

same units of otherwise unallocated 

allowances from the Indian country 

NUSA for Kansas if some but not all of 

those allowances should be made 

available by EPA for state allocation. 

Finally, the rule includes provisions 

defining several terms used either in the 

rule’s allocation provisions or in other 

definitions. 

The SIP revision was submitted to 

EPA by a letter from the Kansas 

Secretary of Health and Environment 

acting as the designated representative 

of the Governor of Kansas. The letter 

describes steps taken by Kansas to 

provide public notice prior to adoption 

of the state rule. The letter also indicates 

that paragraphs 28–19–274(a)(2)(A) and 

(B) of the Kansas rule, which contain 

definitions of certain terms differing 

from the definitions of the same terms 

in the Federal trading program 

regulations, are excluded from the SIP 

submittal. 

EPA has previously approved a 

separate Kansas SIP revision replacing 

the default allowance allocation 

provisions of the CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program for Kansas existing 

units for the control period in 2016.27 At 

this time, Kansas has not submitted any 

SIP revision to modify or replace the 

CSAPR FIP that requires the state’s units 

to participate in the CSAPR SO2 Group 

2 Trading Program. 

B. EPA’s Analysis of Kansas’s Submittal 

1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP 

Submittal 

Kansas’ SIP revision seeks to establish 

state-determined allocations of CSAPR 

NOX Annual allowances for the control 

periods in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Under 

40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B), 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) makes December 

1, 2015 the deadline for submission to 

EPA of a complete SIP revision 

establishing state-determined 

allocations for those control periods. 

Kansas submitted its SIP revision to 

EPA by a letter dated and delivered 

electronically on December 1, 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 

Kansas’s SIP revision was timely 

submitted and meets the applicable 

completeness criteria, it meets the 

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

for timely submission of a complete SIP 

revision. 

2. Methodology Covering All 

Allowances Potentially Requiring 

Allocation 

Paragraph 28–19–274(c) of the Kansas 

rule provides that the allowance 

allocation methodology adopted by 

Kansas in the SIP revision replaces the 

provisions of 40 CFR 97.411(a), thereby 

addressing all allowances that under the 

default allocation provisions for the 

Federal trading program would be 

allocated to units considered existing 

units for CSAPR purposes (prior to 

allocation of any otherwise unallocated 

allowances from the NUSA or Indian 

country NUSA for Kansas). The same 

Kansas rule paragraph also provides that 

the state’s allocation methodology 

replaces the provisions of 40 CFR 

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

addressing allocation of allowances in 

the NUSA established for Kansas under 

the Federal trading program. In 

addition, paragraphs 28–19–274(d) and 

(e) of the Kansas rule provide 

procedures addressing any otherwise 

unallocated allowances from the Indian 

country NUSA for Kansas that may be 

made available for allocation by the 

state after EPA has carried out the 

Indian country NUSA allocation 

procedures. Collectively, the allocation 

provisions in the Kansas rule therefore 

enable Kansas’ SIP revision to meet the 

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

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 

Paragraph 28–19–274(d) of the Kansas 

rule provides for allowance allocations 

to be made in fixed amounts set forth in 

tables adopted by reference into the 

state rules. For each of the three control 

periods for which the rule allocates 

allowances, there is a table providing 

allocations for the allowances that 

absent this SIP revision would be 

allocated pursuant to 40 CFR 97.411(a), 

97.411(b)(1), and 97.412(a). For each of 

the control periods, the sum of the fixed 

amounts allocated according to these 

tables is 31,323 allowances, which is 

equal to the Kansas budget for the 

control period (31,354 tons) less the 

amount of the Indian country NUSA for 

Kansas (31 tons).28 EPA has not yet 

allocated or recorded CSAPR 

allowances for the 2017 through 2019 

control periods. The allocation 

methodology in Kansas’s SIP revision 

therefore meets the condition under 40 

CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A) that the total 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 42261 

29EPA 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 Kansas rule, EPA would interpret 

the Kansas rule 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’’. 

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. 

While the Kansas rule also has 

provisions providing potential 

allocations of allowances from the 

Indian country NUSA for Kansas, under 

paragraph 28–19–274(b) of the Kansas 

rule the only allowances available for 

allocation under those provisions are 

otherwise unallocated allowances that 

EPA has made available from the Indian 

country NUSA for state allocation after 

having carried out the Indian country 

NUSA allocation procedures. The total 

of the allowances allocated under the 

SIP revision and any allowances 

allocated by EPA from the Indian 

country NUSA for Kansas therefore will 

not exceed the state budget, consistent 

with the purpose of 40 CFR 

52.38(a)(4)(i)(A). 

4. Timely Submission of StateDetermined Allocations to EPA 

The state-determined allowance 

allocations established by the Kansas 

rule for each of the three control periods 

covered by the rule are included in 

tables that have been adopted by 

reference into the state rule and that 

were provided to EPA as part of the SIP 

submittal on December 1, 2015. As 

noted above, in the case of a SIP 

revision seeking to allocate allowances 

starting with the 2017 control period, 

the earliest deadline for submission to 

EPA of the state-determined allocations 

is June 1, 2016. Kansas’ SIP revision 

therefore meets the conditions under 40 

CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and (C) 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 Kansas rule includes no 

provision allowing alteration of 

allocations after the allocation amounts 

have been provided to EPA and no 

provision 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). 

6. No Other Substantive Changes to 

Federal Trading Program Provisions 

Besides the provisions addressing 

allowance allocations discussed above, 

the Kansas rule includes a number of 

provisions defining terms used either in 

the rule’s allocation provisions or in 

other definitions. In paragraph 28–19– 

274(a)(1), the rule adopts by reference 

several terms defined in 40 CFR 97.402, 

and in paragraph 28–19–274(b), the rule 

defines a new term ‘‘Indian country new 

unit set-aside allowance’’ that is used 

only in the Kansas rule for purposes of 

allowance allocations. These provisions 

do not make substantive changes to the 

Federal trading program provisions.29

Paragraphs 28–19–274(a)(2)(A) and 

(B) of the Kansas rule adopt definitions 

of ‘‘administrator’’, ‘‘State’’, and 

‘‘permitting authority’’ that 

substantively differ from the definitions 

of these terms in the Federal trading 

program regulations. While these terms 

are not used directly in the Kansas rule, 

they are used in the Federal trading 

program definitions of some of the other 

terms that are adopted by reference 

under paragraph 28–19–274(a)(1). 

Inclusion of the Kansas rule’s 

definitions of ‘‘administrator’’, ‘‘State’’, 

and ‘‘permitting authority’’ in the SIP 

revision therefore would cause the 

meanings of those other adopted terms 

as used in the Kansas rule to 

substantively differ from the meanings 

of the same terms as used in the Federal 

trading program regulations. After being 

advised of these differences by EPA, 

Kansas elected to exclude the provisions 

of paragraphs 28–19–274(a)(2)(A) and 

(B) of the Kansas rule from the SIP 

revision, as the state’s letter submitting 

the SIP revision makes clear. (Without 

the excluded provisions, the rule 

remains fully functional for its intended 

purpose of allocating CSAPR allowances 

among the state’s units.) Considering 

Kansas’ SIP revision without the 

excluded rule provisions, EPA has 

determined that the SIP revision meets 

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

of making no substantive changes to the 

Federal trading program regulations 

beyond the provisions addressing 

allowance allocations. 

V. EPA’s Action on Kansas’ Submittal 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve the revision to Kansas’ SIP 

submitted on December 1, 2015 

concerning allocations to Kansas units 

of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances for 

the control periods in 2017, 2018, and 

2019. This SIP revision adopts into the 

SIP the rule codified in Kansas’ 

regulations at K.A.R. 28–19–274 

excluding paragraphs 28–19– 

274(a)(2)(A) and (B). The Kansas rule in 

turn incorporates a document entitled 

‘‘TR NOX annual allowance allocations 

for 2017, 2018, and 2019,’’ dated July 

17, 2015, which contains tables setting 

forth state-determined allowance 

allocations to individual Kansas units. 

Following this approval, allocations of 

these allowances will be made 

according to the provisions of Kansas’ 

SIP instead of CSAPR’s default 

allocation provisions at 40 CFR 

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

Approval of this SIP revision does not 

alter any provision of the Federal 

CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program as 

applied to Kansas units other than the 

allowance allocation provisions, and the 

FIP requiring the units to participate in 

that program (as modified by this SIP 

revision) remains in place. 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, as discussed in 

section IV above. Because the SIP 

revision addresses only the control 

periods in 2017 through 2019, absent 

submission and approval of a further 

SIP revision, allocations of CSAPR NOX

Annual allowances for control periods 

in 2020 and later years will be made 

pursuant to the default allocation 

provisions. 

Large electricity generating units in 

Kansas are also subject to an additional 

CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate 

in the Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program. Kansas’s SIP submittal 

does not seek to replace the default 

allocations of CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

allowances to Kansas units. Approval of 

this SIP revision concerning another 

CSAPR trading program has no effect on 

the Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program as applied to Kansas 

units, and the FIP requiring the units to 

participate in that program remains in 

place. 

Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

42262 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the Kansas Cross-State 

Air Pollution 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). 

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 

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 R—Kansas 

■ 2. Amend § 52.870(c), by adding entry 

28–19–274, in numerical order, under 

the subheading entitled ‘‘General 

Provisions’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 42263 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS REGULATIONS

Kansas citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control 

*******

General Provisions 

*******

K.A.R. 28–19–274 ..... Nitrogen Oxide allocations ......... 11/6/15 6/29/16 and [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Approval of EGU-specific NOX

allocations does not include 

KAR 28–19–274(a)(2)(A) and 

(a)(2)(B). 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–15040 Filed 6–28–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0636; FRL–9948–24– 

Region 9] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Reclassification as 

Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS; Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects a 

paragraph designation error that 

occurred in a January 20, 2016, final 

rule pertaining to the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 

reclassification of the San Joaquin 

Valley in California from Moderate to 

Serious for the 2006 PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The paragraph designation in 

that rulemaking conflicts with a 

paragraph designation in a different 

final rule. The EPA, therefore, is 

correcting the erroneous paragraph 

designation. 

DATES: This correcting amendment is 

effective on June 29, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4192, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA 

published a final rule document on 

January 20, 2016 (81 FR 2993) to 

reclassify the San Joaquin Valley 

Moderate nonattainment area, including 

areas of Indian country within it, as a 

Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In the January 20, 2016 

document, the EPA included 

amendatory instructions that added 

paragraph (e) to 40 CFR 52.247. 81 FR 

2993, at 3000 (column 2). However, in 

a separate final rule published on 

January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1514), the EPA 

also included amendatory instructions 

that added paragraph (e) to 40 CFR 

52.247. 81 FR 1514, at 1520 (column 2). 

As such, the amendments to 40 CFR 

52.247 in the two final rules are in 

conflict and cannot be implemented 

together. The January 20, 2016 final rule 

should have included amendatory 

instructions adding paragraph (f), rather 

than (e). This document corrects that 

error. 

The EPA has determined that this 

action falls under the ‘‘good cause’’ 

exemption in section 553(b)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

which, upon finding ‘‘good cause,’’ 

authorizes agencies to dispense with 

public participation where public notice 

and comment procedures are 

impracticable, unnecessary or contrary 

to the public interest. Public notice and 

comment for this action are unnecessary 

because the underlying rule for which 

this correcting amendment has been 

prepared was already subject to a 30-day 

comment period and because the error 

addressed herein does not change the 

regulatory language in the rule. It only 

changes the paragraph designation for 

the relevant regulatory language. Thus, 

no purpose would be served by 

additional public notice and comment, 

and additional public notice and 

comment is unnecessary. 

The EPA also finds that there is good 

cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for 

the correction in the amendatory 

instructions and related paragraph 

designation to become effective on the 

date of publication. Section 553(d)(3) of 

the APA allows an effective date less 

than 30 days after publication ‘‘as 

otherwise provided by the agency for 

good cause found and published with 

the rule.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The EPA 

finds that resolving the conflict in the 

amendatory instructions in the two 

relevant final rules does not create any 

new regulatory requirements such that 

affected parties would need time to 

prepare before the rule takes effect. 

Rather, this rule eliminates the 

confusion caused by designating two 

paragraphs in 40 CFR 52.247 as 

paragraph (e). For these reasons, the 

EPA finds good cause under APA 

section 553(d)(3) for the correction in 

the amendatory instructions associated 

with the January 20, 2016 final rule to 

become effective on the date of 

publication of this final rule. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). Because the agency has made 

a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action 

is not subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act or any other statute as 

indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section, above, it is not 

subject to the regulatory flexibility 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or to sections 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES