74750 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas 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.’’ 

2 64 FR at 35715. 

Dated: October 18, 2016. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–26016 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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/commentingepa-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). 

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 nonanthropogenic 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-today 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. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 74751 

3The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

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). 

5At 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. 

6Civil Action No. H–05–0285. A copy of this CD 

is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

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 ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

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). 

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, EcoServices, 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
74752 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

7Civil Action No. 09–6662. A copy of this CD is 

available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

8At 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 EcoServices. 

9Under 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. 

10Civil Action No. 2:07CV134 WL. A copy of this 

CD is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

11We acknowledge that compliance with the 

BART Guidelines in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y 

is not mandatory for Eco-Services because EcoServices is a non-EGU source. However, following 

these Guidelines is one option for subject-to-BART 

non-EGUs to ensure BART determinations are 

adequate. 

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. 

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. 

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

In the July 23, 2012 action (77 FR at 

39426), EPA found that with the 

selected control strategy, the EcoServices 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 EcoServices, which was provided in the 

August 11, 2016 SIP revision. 

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 EcoServices 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 74753 

the NSPS standard, constitutes BART. 

We propose to approve the BART 

analysis and the emission limits for EcoServices. 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 BARTeligible 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0083; FRL–9954–27] 

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for 

Residues of a Pesticide Chemical in or 

on a Commodity 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of an initial filing of a 

pesticide petition requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0083, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS