```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74750-74753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25803]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0520; FRL-9952-65-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submitted by the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) on August 11, 2016 that addresses regional 
haze (RH) for the first planning period. This revision was submitted to 
address deficiencies identified in a previous action regarding 
requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and the EPA's 
rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing 
man-made impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by 
emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide 
geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). 
This action concerns Best Available Retrofit Technology for certain 
sources.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 28, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2016-0520, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
huser.jennifer@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. 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 Jennifer Huser, 214-665-
7347, huser.jennifer@epa.gov. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA 
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may 
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location 
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Huser, 214-665-7347, 
huser.jennifer@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment with Jennifer Huser or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

A. The Regional Haze Program

    In the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, Congress established 
a program to protect and improve visibility in the Nation's national 
parks and wilderness areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the 
visibility provisions in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the 
problem of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. The EPA promulgated 
regional haze regulations in 1999 to implement sections 169A and 169B 
of the CAA. These regulations require states to develop and implement 
plans to ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas \1\ (Class I areas). See 64 FR 35714 
(July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 
(October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, the EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused 
by air pollution, principally fine particulate, produced by numerous 
sources and activities, located across a broad regional area. The 
sources include but are not limited to, major and minor stationary 
sources, mobile sources, and area sources including non-anthropogenic 
sources. These sources and activities may emit fine particles (PM 
2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 
carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some cases, 
ammonia and volatile organic compounds). Fine particulate can also 
cause serious health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes 
to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication. 
See 64 FR at 35715. Data from the existing visibility monitoring 
network, the ``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments'' (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility 
impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time in 
most national parks and wilderness areas. The average visual range in 
many Class I areas in the western United States is 100-150 kilometers, 
or about one-half to two-thirds the visual range that would exist 
without manmade air pollution.\2\ Visibility impairment also varies 
day-to-day and by season depending on variations in meteorology and 
emission rates. The deciview (dv) is the metric by which visibility is 
measured in the regional haze program. A change of 1 dv is generally 
considered the change in visual range that the human eye can perceive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 64 FR at 35715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources with the potential to emit greater than 250 tons per 
year (tpy) or more of any visibility impairing pollutant in order to 
address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 
169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires states to revise their SIPs to 
contain such measures as may be necessary to make

[[Page 74751]]

reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a 
requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \3\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'', as determined by the state 
or us in the case of a plan promulgated under section 110(c) of the 
CAA. Under the Regional Haze rule, states are directed to conduct BART 
determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a 
Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We promulgated regulations addressing Regional Haze in 1999, 64 FR 
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.\4\ These 
regulations require all states to submit implementation plans that, 
among other measures, contain either emission limits representing BART 
for certain sources constructed between 1962 and 1977, or alternative 
measures that provide for greater reasonable progress than BART. 40 CFR 
51.308(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In American Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 
2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit issued a ruling vacating and remanding the BART provisions 
of the regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART guidelines to 
address the court's ruling in that case. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA's Previous Actions on Louisiana Regional Haze

    On June 13, 2008, Louisiana submitted a SIP to address regional 
haze. EPA acted on that submittal in two separate actions. The first 
was a limited disapproval (77 FR 33641) because of deficiencies in the 
state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to the EPA of the Clean 
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The second was a partial limited approval/
partial disapproval (77 FR 39425) because the SIP revision met some but 
not all of the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations 
as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-
308, but as a whole, the SIP revision strengthened the SIP. The 
deficiencies included inadequate Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART) determinations for four facilities. These four facilities are 
the only non-electric generating unit (EGU) facilities in Louisiana 
that were identified as being subject to BART and are referred to as 
the non-EGU facilities.
    On August 11 2016, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision intended to 
address the deficiencies related to BART for the four non-EGUs.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. Introduction to the Four Non-EGU Facilities: Summary

    The four non-EGU facilities are: Phillips 66 Company-Alliance 
Refinery; Mosaic Fertilizer LLC, Uncle Sam Plant; Eco-Services 
Operations Corp.; and Sid Richardson Carbon Co., Addis Plant. For three 
facilities (Phillips 66, Eco-Services, and Sid Richardson), LDEQ had 
submitted a BART analysis under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). For each of 
these facilities, we determined, in our July 3, 2012 notice, that the 
BART analysis satisfied part, but not all, of the requirements. We also 
found that LDEQ had erred in exempting Mosaic from BART by using future 
controls and visibility impacts rather than assessing controls that 
were in place at the time of the SIP submittal.
    In its August 11, 2016 SIP submittal, LDEQ provided revised BART 
analyses for the three facilities to address the deficiencies noted in 
the previous Regional Haze SIP action. LDEQ has also provided a BART 
analysis for Mosaic. A summary of our proposed findings for these 
facilities is provided below. For more details, please see our 
evaluation of the BART determination for each of these four subject-to-
BART sources in the TSD.
A. Sid Richardson Carbon Co.
    The Sid Richardson Carbon Company's Addis Plant is located in West 
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. For the BART eligible units at the 
facility, LDEQ submitted in the original Regional Haze SIP a BART 
engineering analysis; for particulate matter the LDEQ determined that 
the high efficiency fabric filters already in use at the facility are 
BART. EPA found that the LDEQ acted within its discretion in making 
this determination and that the analyses met the BART requirements. 
However, the EPA found that the BART analysis for NOX and 
SO2 were deficient. While LDEQ indicated that no controls 
were technically feasible, EPA found that the record did not provide a 
sufficient basis for this conclusion. Based on this, the NOX 
and SO2 BART determination for the Addis Plant was deemed 
deficient (77 FR 11851).
    The original modeling that was performed showed that the facility 
had an impact that was above the contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview 
level for determining which sources are subject to BART. The Addis 
plant model results were 0.756 deciviews.
    In response to the EPA action, Sid Richardson revised the BART 
analysis and updated the modeling. The facility requested permission to 
perform a new round of modeling using the same emissions parameters 
that were used in the original model but utilizing the newest EPA 
approved methods and guidance documents. EPA reviewed and concurred 
with the methodology and modeling results provided by Sid Richardson. 
Based on this analysis, LDEQ concluded that the facility is not 
subject-to-BART because its model visibility impact was less than 0.5 
deciviews. We have evaluated LDEQ's submittal and propose to approve 
the Sid Richardson BART analysis and modeling and the LDEQ's finding 
that the Addis plant is not subject-to-BART.
B. Phillips 66 Company-Alliance Refinery (Formerly ConocoPhillips)
    The Phillips 66 Company (Phillips 66) owns and operates the 
Alliance Refinery near Belle Chasse, Louisiana, which is a subject-to-
BART source.\5\ On December 5, 2005, Conoco Phillips, the United States 
of America and the State of Louisiana, entered into a Consent Decree 
(CD) \6\ as part of the National Refinery Initiative for the Belle 
Chasse (Alliance) Refinery. In our previous action, we found that the 
BART engineering analysis provided by Phillips 66 utilized emission 
reductions that are mandated per the CD for the fluidized catalytic 
cracker (FCCU), the process refinery flares and the crude unit heater. 
However, the LDEQ did not provide a complete BART evaluation for these 
units. In the August 11, 2016 SIP revision, LDEQ provided a complete 
BART determination for these units. Controls and conditions required by 
the CD include a wet gas scrubber on the FCCU, selective catalytic 
reduction (SCR) on the FCCU and crude unit heater, flare gas recovery 
for the process refinery flares, and compliance with the Standards of 
Performance for Petroleum Refineries as prescribed in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J for the low pressure and high pressure flares, CO boilers, 
and crude unit heaters. Implementation of these control projects as per 
the CD emissions reduction requirements have resulted in reducing the 
overall site visibility impacts. In the previous

[[Page 74752]]

action, we also found that the LDEQ failed to submit the emissions 
limits as part of the SIP revision as required. The emissions limits 
are now included in an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) No. AE-
AOC-14-00211A between LDEQ and Phillips 66 and were provided in the 
August 11, 2016 SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ At the time of Louisiana's initial Regional Haze SIP, the 
Alliance Refinery was owned and operated by ConocoPhillips. 
Ownership of the Alliance Refinery transferred to Phillips 66 on 
April 26, 2012. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution 
Agreement between the companies, responsibility for compliance with 
the environmental permits now resides with Phillips 66 Company.
    \6\ Civil Action No. H-05-0285. A copy of this CD is available 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our initial action on Louisiana Regional Haze, we approved 
LDEQ's BART determinations for several other subject to BART units at 
the Alliance Refinery. These units include the cooling water tower, 
gas-fired heaters, loading docks, and the coke transfer and storage 
area. See 77 FR at 39432. However, at that time, LDEQ did not submit 
the BART emissions limits for approval into the SIP. The BART emissions 
limits for these units are also included in AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00211A.
    EPA proposes to find that the current controls installed and 
operating conditions at these subject to BART units constitute BART. 
The emissions limits for all of the subject to BART units at the 
Alliance Refinery are included in the AOC in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(4)(e). Upon EPA approval of this portion of the Regional Haze 
SIP submittal, the AOC becomes federally enforceable. We propose to 
approve the BART analysis and the emission limits for Phillips 66 as 
meeting the BART requirements.
C. Mosaic Fertilizer LLC
    Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, owns and operates the Uncle Sam Plant 
(Mosaic) in St. James Parish, Louisiana and produces phosphoric acid 
and sulfuric acid. In our previous action, we partially disapproved 
Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP for failure to identify Mosaic as subject 
to BART and failure to submit a BART determination for Mosaic.
    In Louisiana's initial Regional Haze SIP submittal, the LDEQ used a 
contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for determining which sources are 
subject to BART, and we approved this threshold in our previous action. 
See, 77 FR at 11849. The Regional Haze Rule states that a BART eligible 
source can only be exempted from being subject to BART if its 
visibility impacts at the time the SIP is developed are less than the 
screening value. See, 70 FR 39118; 77 FR at 11849.
    In the original Regional Haze SIP submittal, the LDEQ properly 
identified Mosaic as a BART eligible source consistent with the BART 
Guidelines. However, LDEQ's initial SIP submittal inappropriately 
allowed Mosaic to screen out based on controls that were not installed 
at the time of the submittal. LDEQ accepted Mosaic's modeling, which 
was based on future controls that were to be installed on the A-Train 
Sulfuric Acid Stack. Based on the modeling results, the LDEQ listed the 
facility as passing both the screening modeling as well as the refined 
modeling. As such, LDEQ erroneously determined that the facility was 
not subject to BART and, therefore, was not required to perform a BART 
analysis.
    In our final action (77 FR at 39429), we determined that the state 
should have identified the Mosaic facility as being subject to BART and 
submitted a BART determination for the source. Mosaic entered into a CD 
with the EPA, LDEQ and other parties on December 23, 2009.\7\ The CD 
required the installation of controls on the Sulfuric Acid Trains A, D, 
and E, including a scrubber system on the A Train and process 
improvements on the D Train. These controls resulted in a reduction in 
SO2 emissions of over 10,000 tons per year. In its SIP 
revision, LDEQ provided a complete BART analysis concluding that 
additional control beyond those required by the consent decree would 
not be necessary to meet BART. Based on a review of the BART analysis 
and LDEQ's determination, EPA agrees that Mosaic, with its current 
controls and operating conditions, has satisfied BART. The emissions 
limits for Mosaic under current controls and operating conditions are 
included in AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00274A which was included in the August 
11, 2016 SIP revision in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(4)(e). Upon EPA 
approval of this portion of the Regional Haze SIP submittal, the AOC 
becomes federally enforceable. We propose to approve the BART analysis 
and the emission limits for Mosaic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Civil Action No. 09-6662. A copy of this CD is available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Eco-Services Operations Corp (Formerly Rhodia)
    The Eco-Services Operations Corp facility (Eco-Services) is a 
sulfuric acid plant located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.\8\ The plant 
produces sulfuric acid by using two sulfuric acid production trains, 
Unit 1 and Unit 2, but only Unit 2 is subject to BART.\9\ Effective 
July 23, 2007, the EPA, LDEQ and other parties entered into a CD with 
Eco-Services due to violations associated with excess emissions of 
sulfuric acid mist and sulfur dioxide. The CD required a scrubber to be 
installed on each of the units to control SO2 emissions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ At the time of Louisiana's initial Regional Haze SIP, the 
facility was owned and operated by Rhodia. Effective October 1, 
2013, Rhodia Inc. changed its company name and the name of the 
facility from Rhodia Inc. to Solvay USA Inc. The LDEQ Office of 
Environmental Services acknowledged the name change in 
correspondence, dated November 1, 2013. On December 1, 2014, Solvay 
USA Inc. transferred ownership and operation of the facility to Eco 
Services Operations LLC. Pursuant to the agreement between the 
companies and the Department's approval of the permit transfer, 
responsibility for compliance with the terms and conditions of 
Permit No. 0840-00033-V5 now resides with Eco Services Operations 
LLC. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement between 
the companies, responsibility for compliance with the environmental 
permits now resides with Eco-Services.
    \9\ Under the CAA, BART only applies to a unit that was ``in 
existence on August 7, 1977, but which has not been in operation for 
more than fifteen years as of such date.'' 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A); 
CAA 169A(b)(2)(A). Unit 1 was constructed in 1953, which is outside 
the BART timeframe. However, Unit 2 was constructed in 1968.
    \10\ Civil Action No. 2:07CV134 WL. A copy of this CD is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the July 23, 2012 action (77 FR at 39426), EPA found that with 
the selected control strategy, the Eco-Services units met the BART 
requirements at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y.OV.D.1.9.\11\ However, EPA 
found that the LDEQ failed to submit the emissions limits as part of 
the SIP revision as required. The emissions limits are included in the 
AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00957 between LDEQ and Eco-Services, which was 
provided in the August 11, 2016 SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We acknowledge that compliance with the BART Guidelines in 
40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y is not mandatory for Eco-Services because 
Eco-Services is a non-EGU source. However, following these 
Guidelines is one option for subject-to-BART non-EGUs to ensure BART 
determinations are adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the BART analysis, Eco-Services identified both a short term and 
long term limit control level for SO2. The long term 
emissions limits for Eco-Services under current controls and operating 
conditions are included in the AOC in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(4)(e) and are federally enforceable. The short term limit 
provided in the BART analysis is 3 lbs/ton, consistent with the limits 
established in the Consent Decree. The long term limit in the Consent 
Decree includes an exemption for emissions during startup shutdown and 
malfunction. However, the short term emissions are limited by the New 
Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR 
part 60, subpart H). This short term limit is applicable at all times 
and is adequate to meet BART during periods of startup and shutdown. 
EPA concurs with LDEQ's evaluation and findings that the current 
controls in place, along with the federally enforceable limits 
established in the AOC and through applicability to

[[Page 74753]]

the NSPS standard, constitutes BART. We propose to approve the BART 
analysis and the emission limits for Eco-Services. Upon approval the 
limits in the SIP these limits will be federally enforceable.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP revision 
submitted on August 11, 2016. Specifically, we are proposing to find 
that the following elements have satisfied the federal requirement:
     the State's identification of BART-eligible sources,
     the State's determination that Sid Richardson Addis Plant 
is not subject to BART,
     the State's BART determinations for Phillips 66, Eco-
Services, and Mosaic.

IV. 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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 proposed 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze, 
Best available control technology.

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

    Dated: October 11, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-25803 Filed 10-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```