```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76547-76550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26613]

[[Page 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          06/06/14        07/18/14
                                             Plan (AQMP) Reasonably Available
                                             Control Technology (RACT)
                                             Demonstration ``2016 AQMP RACT
                                             SIP''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 76548]]

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

[[Page 76549]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ BARCT 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under longstanding EPA interpretation of the CAA, a market-based 
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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SIP-approved 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Draft Final Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Regulation 
XX Regional Clean Air Initiatives Market (RECLAIM) NOX 
RECLAIM, December 4, 2015, (page 92).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 76550]]

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/laws-regulations/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
```