Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 76547 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0215; FRL–9954–91– 

Region 9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of California Air Plan 

Revisions; South Coast Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a partial 

approval and partial disapproval of a 

revision to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD or 

District) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns the District’s 

demonstration regarding Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) in the South Coast Air Basin 

and Coachella Valley ozone 

nonattainment areas. We are proposing 

action on a local SIP revision under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are 

taking comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

December 5, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2016–0215 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the 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. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What document did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this 

document? 

C. What is the purpose of the RACT SIP 

submission? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the RACT 

SIP submission? 

B. Does the RACT SIP submission meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

C. What are the RACT deficiencies? 

D. The EPA’s Recommendations To 

Further Improve the RACT SIP 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What document did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the document addressed 

by this proposal with the date that it 

was adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED DOCUMENT

Local agency Document Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD ................... SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Demonstration ‘‘2016 AQMP RACT SIP’’.

06/06/14 07/18/14 

On January 18, 2015, the submittal for 

the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP RACT SIP 

was deemed by operation of law to meet 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 

51 Appendix V, which must be met 

before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this 

document? 

There is no previous version of this 

document in the SCAQMD portion of 

the California SIP for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

C. What is the purpose of the RACT SIP 

submission? 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 

and nitrogen oxides (NOX) help produce 

ground-level ozone, smog and 

particulate matter (PM), which harm 

human health and the environment. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit regulations that control 

VOC and NOX emissions. Sections 

182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs for 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above implement RACT for 

any source covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

and for any major source of VOCs or 

NOX. 

The SCAQMD is subject to the RACT 

requirement as it is authorized under 

state law to regulate stationary sources 

in the South Coast Air Basin (‘‘South 

Coast’’), which is classified as an 

extreme nonattainment area, and in the 

Coachella Valley portion of Riverside 

County (‘‘Coachella Valley’’), which is 

classified as a severe-15 nonattainment 

area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

(40 CFR 81.305); 77 FR 30088 at 30101 

and 30103 (May 21, 2012). Therefore, 

the SCAQMD must, at a minimum, 

adopt RACT-level controls for all 

sources covered by a CTG document 

and for all major non-CTG sources of 

VOCs or NOX within the two 

nonattainment areas. Any stationary 

source that emits or has the potential to 

emit at least 10 tons per year of VOCs 

or NOX is a major stationary source in 

an extreme ozone nonattainment area 

(CAA section 182(e) and (f)), and any 

stationary source that emits or has the 

potential to emit at least 25 tons per 

year of VOCs or NOX is a major 

stationary source in a severe ozone 

nonattainment area (CAA section 182(d) 

and (f)). 

Section III.D of the preamble to the 

EPA’s final rule to implement the 2008 

ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 

2015) discusses RACT requirements. It 

states in part that RACT SIPs must 

contain adopted RACT regulations, 

certifications where appropriate that 

existing provisions are RACT, and/or 

negative declarations that there are no 

sources in the nonattainment area 

covered by a specific CTG source 

category and that states must submit 

appropriate supporting information for 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

76548 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

their RACT submissions as described in 

the EPA’s implementation rule for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. See id., at 12278; 

70 FR 71612, at 71652 (November 29, 

2005). The submitted document 

provides SCAQMD’s analyses of its 

compliance with the CAA section 182 

RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The EPA’s technical 

support document (TSD) has more 

information about the District’s 

submission and the EPA’s evaluation 

thereof. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the RACT 

SIP submission? 

SIP rules must be enforceable (see 

CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not 

interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA 

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), 

and must not modify certain SIP control 

requirements in nonattainment areas 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 

193). Generally, SIP rules must require 

RACT for each category of sources 

covered by a CTG document as well as 

each major source of VOCs or NOX in 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above (see CAA section 

182(b)(2)). The SCAQMD regulates an 

extreme ozone nonattainment area (i.e., 

the South Coast Air Basin) and a severe 

ozone nonattainment area (i.e., 

Coachella Valley) (see 40 CFR 81.305), 

so the District’s rules must implement 

RACT. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2’’ (70 FR 71612; 

November 29, 2005). 

2. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title 

I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 

FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 

3. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ 

EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, 

revised January 11, 1990). 

4. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen 

Oxides Supplement to the General 

Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed 

Rule,’’ (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 

55620, November 25, 1992. 

6. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to 

Regional Air Division Directors, (May 18, 

2006), ‘‘RACT Qs & As—Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

Questions and Answers’’. 

7. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 

from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to 

CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region 

IX’s understanding of what constitutes a 

minimally acceptable RACT SIP. 

8. RACT SIPs, Letter dated April 4, 2006 from 

EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to 

CARB (Kurt Karperos) listing EPA’s 

current CTGs, ACTs, and other 

documents which may help to establish 

RACT. 

9. ‘‘Implementation of the 2008 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements’’ (80 FR 12264; March 6, 

2015). 

B. Does the RACT SIP submission meet 

the evaluation criteria? 

The 2016 AQMP RACT SIP 

(submitted July 18, 2014) builds on the 

District’s previous RACT SIP 

demonstrations: The 2006 RACT SIP (73 

FR 76947, December 18, 2008), the 2007 

AQMP (77 FR 12674, March 1, 2012) 

and the 2012 AQMP (79 FR 52526, 

September 3, 2014). The 2016 AQMP 

RACT SIP concludes, after a review and 

evaluation of more than 30 rules 

recently developed by other ozone 

nonattainment air districts, that 

SCAQMD’s current rules meet the EPA’s 

criteria for RACT acceptability and 

inclusion in the SIP for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. A RACT SIP should 

consider requirements that apply to 

CTG source categories and all major 

stationary sources of VOC or NOX

emissions. 

With regard to CTG and non-CTG 

source categories, based on its research 

of the District’s permit databases and 

telephone directories for sources in the 

District for the 2007 AQMP, the 2012 

AQMP, and the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP, 

the SCAQMD concluded that all 

identified sources have applicable 

RACT rules. As such, we characterize 

the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP as a 

certification-type of RACT SIP 

submittal. Because the District’s VOC 

and NOX rules apply equally in both the 

South Coast and Coachella Valley, the 

District’s certification in this regard 

extends to both ozone nonattainment 

areas. 

Where there are no existing sources 

covered by a particular CTG document, 

states may, in lieu of adopting RACT 

requirements for those sources, adopt 

negative declarations certifying that 

there are no such sources in the relevant 

nonattainment area. The 2007 AQMP 

indicates there are existing sources for 

each CTG document issued before 2006, 

and the 2012 AQMP indicates there are 

existing sources for each CTG document 

issued from 2006 to 2008. The EPA has 

not issued any CTGs since 2008. The 

SCAQMD did not report any negative 

declarations in the 2016 AQMP RACT 

SIP as well. 

However, subsequent to its 2016 

AQMP RACT SIP submittal, the EPA 

had several discussions with the 

SCAQMD and concluded there may be 

two CTG categories where the District 

has no sources applicable to the CTGs. 

For the Paper, Film and Foil coatings 

CTG, it appears from a review of: The 

standard industrial codes (SIC) 

applicable to the CTG, the CARB’s 

emissions inventory, and discussion 

with the SCAQMD permit engineer, that 

the SCAQMD has no paper coating 

sources with coating lines exceeding the 

CTG’s applicability threshold (EPA 453/ 

R–07–003). For the Surface Coating 

Operations at Shipbuilding and Repair 

Facilities CTG (61 FR–44050, August 27, 

1996 and EPA–453/R–94–032), the 

SCAQMD indicates it only has one 

active title V shipyard facility that is 

subject to Rule 1106, Marine Coating 

Operations. The one coating category in 

Rule 1106 that exceeds the CTG’s VOC 

content limit is inorganic zinc and the 

District indicates inorganic zinc coating 

is not used at the facility. Consequently, 

the EPA recommends that the SCAQMD 

evaluate, and adopt where appropriate, 

negative declarations for these two CTG 

categories. The EPA concurs that there 

are no other negative declarations. 

Based on our review and evaluation of 

the documentation provided by the 

SCAQMD in the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP 

and earlier plans, we agree that existing 

District rules approved in the SIP meet 

or are more stringent than the 

corresponding CTG limits and 

exemption thresholds for each category 

of VOC sources covered by a CTG 

document, and given that the CTG 

documents represent presumptive 

RACT level of control, we conclude that 

existing District rules require the 

implementation of RACT for each 

category of VOC sources covered by a 

CTG document located in the South 

Coast and Coachella Valley. 

With respect to major stationary 

sources of VOC or NOX emissions, the 

District provided supplemental 

information identifying 21 new major 

title V sources since its 2006 RACT SIP 

certification and provided a list of 

equipment at these facilities that emit 

greater than 5 tpy. The District 

concluded that the equipment were 

covered by rules that implement RACT. 

The District’s efforts to identify all new 

major sources appears to be thorough, 

and we agree that existing District rules 

approved in the SIP require 

implementation of RACT for all major 

non-CTG VOC sources in the South 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 76549 

1BARCT is defined as ‘‘an emission limitation 

that is based on the maximum degree of reduction 

achievable taking into account environmental, 

energy, and economic impacts by each class or 

category of source.’’ CH&SC section 40406. For the 

purposes of comparison, the EPA defines RACT as 

the lowest emission limitation that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic feasibility. 

44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979). As such, we 

generally find that BARCT level of control meets or 

exceeds RACT level of control. 

2 District Rule 2001 (‘‘Applicability’’), as 

amended May 6, 2005. Facilities in Coachella 

Valley are prohibited from entering the RECLAIM 

program except as allowed under Rule 2001(i)(1)(I). 

3 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) and EPA, 

‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive 

Programs,’’ EPA–452/R–01–001 (January 2001), at 

Section 16.7. 

4 61 FR 57834 (November 8, 1996) and 63 FR 

32621 (June 15, 1998). 5 71 FR 51120 (August 29, 2006) and 76 FR 50128 

(August 12, 2011). 6 Draft Final Staff Report, Proposed Amendments 

to Regulation XX Regional Clean Air Initiatives 

Market (RECLAIM) NOX RECLAIM, December 4, 

2015 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ 

Agendas/Governing-Board/2015/2015-dec4- 

030.pdf?sfvrsn=9. 7 81 FR 22025, 22027 and 22028 (April 14, 2016) 

discussing an absence of a demonstration that the 

2010 RECLAIM program ensures, in the aggregate, 

NOX emission reductions equivalent to RACT-level 

controls. 

8This finding does not apply to Coachella Valley 

because we have determined that the two RECLAIM 

facilities located in Coachella Valley are equipped 

with control technology that meets or exceeds 

RACT level of control. 

9 Draft Final Staff Report, Proposed Amendments 

to Regulation XX Regional Clean Air Initiatives 

Market (RECLAIM) NOX RECLAIM, December 4, 

2015, (page 92). 

Coast and Coachella Valley. We disagree 

that all major NOX sources in the South 

Coast are subject to SIP-approved RACT 

rules or RACT-equivalent programs as 

explained in the following section. 

C. What are the RACT deficiencies? 

Within the South Coast, major NOX

sources are included in SCAQMD’s 

Regulation XX (‘‘Regional Clean Air 

Incentives Market (RECLAIM)’’) 

program. The District adopted the 

RECLAIM program in 1993 to reduce 

emissions from the largest stationary 

sources of NOX and oxides of sulfur 

(SOX) emissions through a market-based 

trading program that establishes annual 

declining NOX and SOX allocations (also 

called ‘‘facility caps’’) and allows 

covered facilities to comply with their 

facility caps by installing pollution 

control equipment, changing operations, 

or purchasing RECLAIM trading credits 

(RTCs) from the RECLAIM market. 

Section 40440 of the California Health 

and Safety Code (CH&SC) requires the 

District to monitor advances in best 

available retrofit control technology 

(BARCT) and periodically to reassess 

the overall facility caps to ensure that 

the facility caps are equivalent, in the 

aggregate, to BARCT emission levels 

imposed on affected sources.1 Facilities 

subject to RECLAIM are exempted from 

a number of District prohibitory rules 

that otherwise apply to sources of NOX

and SOX emissions in the South Coast.2

With certain exceptions, facilities 

located in Coachella Valley are not 

included in the RECLAIM program. 

Under longstanding EPA 

interpretation of the CAA, a marketbased cap and trade program may satisfy 

RACT requirements by ensuring that the 

level of emission reductions resulting 

from implementation of the program 

will be equal, in the aggregate, to those 

reductions expected from the direct 

application of RACT on all affected 

sources within the nonattainment area.3

The EPA approved the RECLAIM 

program into the California SIP in June 

1998 based in part on a conclusion that 

the NOX emission caps in the program 

satisfied the RACT requirements of CAA 

section 182(b)(2) and (f) for covered 

NOX emission sources in the aggregate.4

In 2005 and 2010, the District adopted 

revisions to the NOX RECLAIM 

program, which the EPA approved in 

2006 and 2011, respectively, based in 

part on conclusions that the revisions 

continued to satisfy NOX RACT 

requirements.5 We refer to the current 

NOX RECLAIM program as approved 

into the SIP as the ‘‘2010 RECLAIM 

program.’’ 

The 2016 AQMP RACT SIP relies on 

the 2010 RECLAIM program to satisfy 

the RACT requirements for major NOX

sources in the South Coast and 

Coachella Valley. However, based on 

new information contained in 

SCAQMD’s December 2015 Draft Final 

Staff Report (‘‘2015 staff report’’) 

revising Regulation XX, we find that 

additional NOX reductions are now 

required to achieve RACT as evidenced 

by the lack of controls on some refinery 

boiler units and the District’s proposal 

to reduce the NOX RECLAIM emissions 

cap.6 A more detailed discussion about 

RECLAIM and the requirement that the 

program ensures, in the aggregate, NOX

emissions reductions equivalent to 

RACT-level controls can be found in our 

partial approval/disapproval of the 

South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.7

Thus, based on our evaluation 

discussed above, we propose to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

2016 AQMP RACT SIP certification 

because, while we find that existing SIPapproved District rules implement 

RACT for all sources covered by a CTG 

document and for all major non-CTG 

VOC sources in both the South Coast 

and Coachella Valley, we also find that 

the 2010 RECLAIM program does not 

achieve NOX emission reductions equal, 

in the aggregate, to those reductions 

expected from the direct application of 

RACT on all major NOX sources in the 

South Coast.8

We note that, on December 4, 2015, 

the SCAQMD adopted a new NOX

emissions cap that reflects a level of 2 

ppmv NOX for refinery boilers/heaters 

>40 MMBtu/hr indicating that controls 

‘‘are either commercially available, 

achieved-in-practice and/or can be 

designed to achieve 2 ppmv NOX in a 

cost-effective manner.’’ 9 However, the 

amended RECLAIM program has not 

been submitted to the EPA as a SIP 

revision and such a submittal would 

need to include a demonstration of how 

the RECLAIM program, as amended, 

provides for NOX emission reductions 

equal, in the aggregate, to those 

reductions expected from the direct 

application of RACT on all major NOX

sources in the South Coast. 

D. The EPA’s Recommendations To 

Further Improve the RACT SIP 

Our TSD for the 2016 AQMP RACT 

SIP provides additional 

recommendations for future rule 

improvements. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

For the reasons discussed above and 

explained more fully in our TSD, the 

EPA proposes to partially approve and 

partially disapprove the CARB’s July 18, 

2014 submittal of the SCAQMD 2016 

AQMP RACT SIP as a revision to the 

California SIP. Under CAA section 

110(k)(3), we propose to approve the 

2016 AQMP RACT SIP, with the 

exception of major NOX sources in the 

South Coast, as satisfying the RACT 

requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2) 

and (f) for the South Coast and the 

Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment 

areas. 

Also under CAA section 110(k)(3), we 

propose to disapprove the 2016 AQMP 

RACT SIP as it pertains to major NOX

sources in the South Coast based on the 

EPA’s finding that the 2010 RECLAIM 

program no longer ensures NOX

reductions equivalent to RACT-level 

controls at each individual major NOX

source in the South Coast. 

If finalized, the partial disapproval 

would trigger the 2-year clock for the 

federal implementation plan (FIP) 

requirement under section 110(c). In 

addition, final disapproval would 

trigger sanctions under CAA section 179 

and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the EPA 

approves a subsequent SIP revision that 

corrects the RACT SIP deficiency within 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

76550 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

18 months of the effective date of the 

final action. We note that our partial 

disapproval of the District’s Moderate 

Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

81 FR 22025 (April 14, 2016), has 

already started CAA sanction and FIP 

clocks for a NOX RACT deficiency. 

Termination of those existing clocks by 

EPA approval of a SIP revision 

submittal addressing the NOX RACT 

deficiency in the Moderate Area Plan 

would also terminate sanction/FIP 

clocks associated with final partial 

disapproval of the RACT SIP if the SIP 

revision demonstrates compliance with 

both the Reasonably Available Control 

Measure (RACM)/RACT requirement for 

PM2.5 and the section 182 RACT 

requirement for ozone with respect to 

stationary NOX sources in the South 

Coast. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed partial approval 

and partial disapproval for the next 30 

days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is not a 

significant regulatory action and was 

therefore not submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this proposed action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This proposed action does not contain 

any unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175, because the SIP 

is not approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This proposed action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, because it is not 

a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

proposed action is not subject to the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

NTTAA because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Oxides of 

sulfur, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 19, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–26613 Filed 11–2–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682; FRL–9954–94– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT18 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: 

Petroleum Refinery Sector 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public 

hearing and extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On October 18, 2016, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a document to announce its 

reconsideration of and request for 

public comment on five issues in the 

final National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: 

Petroleum Refinery Sector that was 

published on December 1, 2015. 

Petitioners claim that the public was not 

afforded an adequate opportunity to 

comment on these five issues. 

Additionally, the EPA proposed 

amendments to the final rule to clarify 

a compliance issue raised by 

stakeholders subject to the final rule and 

to correct a referencing error. The EPA 

is announcing that a public hearing will 

be held and extending the public 

comment period. 

DATES: The public hearing will be held 

on November 17, 2016. The comment 

period for the proposed rule published 

in the Federal Register of October 18, 

2016 (81 FR 71661), is extended. 

Written comments must be received on 

or before December 19, 2016. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS