47046 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. 

Comments we post to https://

www.regulations.gov will include any 

personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at https://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

website’s instructions. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. If 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T13–0647 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T13–0647 Safety Zones: Safety Zone; 

CBWTP Outfall Diffuser Improvements, 

Columbia River, Portland, OR. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters of the 

Columbia River, surface to bottom, 

encompassed by a line connecting the 

following points beginning at the 

shoreline at 45°37′26.2′′ N, 

122°41′46.91′′ W, northeast to 

45°37′33.206′′ N, 122°41′37.699′′ W, 

southeast to 45°37′23.4′′ N, 122°41′18.1′′ 

W, thence southwest to 45°37′16.27′′ N, 

122°41′30.75′′ W, and along the 

shoreline back to the beginning point. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Sector Columbia River in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative by calling (503) 209–2468 

or the Sector Columbia River Command 

Center on Channel 16 VHF–FM. Those 

in the safety zone must comply with all 

lawful orders or directions given to 

them by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. This safety 

zone is in effect from 12:01 a.m. on 

October 1, 2021, through 11:59 p.m. on 

February 28, 2022. It will be subject to 

enforcement this entire period unless 

the Captain of the Port, Sector Columbia 

River determines it is no longer needed, 

in which case the Coast Guard will 

inform mariners via Notice to Mariners. 

Dated: August, 17, 2021. 

M. Scott Jackson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector Columbia River. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17911 Filed 8–20–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0438; FRL–8773–01– 

Region 9] 

Limited Approval and Limited 

Disapproval of California Air Quality 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Amador Air District; Stationary Source 

Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

revision to the Amador Air District’s 

(AAD or ‘‘District’’) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This revision governs the 

District’s issuance of permits for 

stationary sources, and focuses on the 

preconstruction review and permitting 

of major sources and major 

modifications under part D of title I of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’). 

We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2021–0438 at http://

www.regulations.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. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47047 

2CAA section 172(b) and 40 CFR 51.914. 

3 80 FR 12264, 12265 (March 6, 2015). 

4The EPA’s determination that the Amador 

County area had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment date 

suspended the requirements to submit those SIP 

elements related to attainment of these NAAQS for 

so long as the area continues to attain but did not 

suspend the requirement to submit an NNSR 

program. 40 CFR 51.918; see also 77 FR 71551, 

71553–71554 (Dec. 3, 2012) (noting that the EPA’s 

attainment determination does not redesignate the 

area to attainment or relax control requirements). 

5 40 CFR 51.1314. 

6The NNSR requirements applicable to Moderate 

ozone nonattainment areas are identical to those 

that apply to Marginal ozone nonattainment areas, 

except that Moderate nonattainment areas are 

subject to a more stringent offset ratio than Marginal 

nonattainment areas. CAA sections 182(a)(2)(C) 

(requiring permit programs consistent with CAA 

sections 172(c)(5) and 173 for ozone nonattainment 

areas), 182(a)(4) (establishing 1.1 to 1 offset ratio for 

Marginal nonattainment areas), and 182(b)(5) 

(establishing 1.15 to 1 offset ratio for Moderate 

nonattainment areas) and 40 CFR 51.165. 

7CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that 

regulations submitted to the EPA for SIP approval 

be clear and legally enforceable, and CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that states have adequate 

personnel, funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out their proposed SIP revisions. 

8Per CAA section 110(l), SIP revisions are subject 

to reasonable notice and public hearing prior to 

adoption and submittal by states to the EPA. 

Additionally, CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA 

from approving any SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. 

9CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of 

any SIP-approved control requirement in effect 

before November 15, 1990 in a nonattainment area 

Continued 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amber Batchelder, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105; by phone: (415) 947–4174, or by 

email to batchelder.amber@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 rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. What is the background for this 

proposal? 

B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

C. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

D. What are the rule deficiencies? 

E. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

F. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal, including the date on which it 

was adopted by the District and the date 

on which it was submitted to the EPA 

by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB or ‘‘the State’’). The AAD is the 

air pollution control agency for Amador 

County in California. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 1

AAD ........................................ 400 NSR Requirements for New and Modified Major Sources in 

Nonattainment Areas.

08/20/19 11/05/19 

1The submittal was transmitted to the EPA via a letter from CARB dated October 31, 2019. 

On May 5, 2020, the submittal for 

AAD Rule 400 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 rule? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 400 in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

Rule 400 is intended to address the 

CAA’s statutory and regulatory 

requirements for Nonattainment New 

Source Review (NNSR) permit programs 

for major sources emitting 

nonattainment air pollutants and their 

precursors. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. What is the background for this 

proposal? 

The EPA’s April 2004 designation of 

Amador County as a nonattainment area 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) triggered the requirement for 

the AAD to develop and submit an 

NNSR program to the EPA for SIP 

approval.2 Although the EPA revoked 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS effective 

April 6, 2015,3 the NNSR requirements 

applicable to Amador County based on 

its designation and classification for the 

revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

remain applicable in order to prevent 

future emissions from new and 

modified major stationary sources from 

increasing beyond the levels allowed, 

based on the area’s prior designation 

and classification for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. Thus, because Amador County 

was designated and classified as 

Moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, the District’s NNSR 

program must satisfy the NNSR 

requirements applicable to Moderate 

ozone nonattainment areas, including 

the offset ratios identified in CAA 

section 182(b)(5).4 Amador County is 

also designated and classified as 

Marginal nonattainment for the 2015 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and, therefore, 

subject to the NNSR requirements 

applicable to Marginal ozone 

nonattainment areas.5 Submission of an 

NNSR program that satisfies the 

requirements of the Act and the EPA’s 

regulations for Moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas, however, would 

satisfy the NNSR program requirements 

for Marginal ozone nonattainment 

areas.6

Additional information regarding the 

District’s nonattainment status for each 

pollutant is included in our Technical 

Support Document (TSD), which may be 

found in the docket for this rule. 

B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

The EPA reviewed Rule 400 for 

compliance with CAA requirements for: 

(1) Stationary source preconstruction 

permitting programs as set forth in CAA 

part D, including CAA sections 172(c)(5) 

and 173; (2) the review and 

modification of major sources in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.160–51.165 

as applicable in Moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas; (3) the review of 

new major stationary sources or major 

modifications in a designated 

nonattainment area that may have an 

impact on visibility in any mandatory 

Class I Federal Area in accordance with 

40 CFR 51.307; (4) SIPs in general as set 

forth in CAA section 110(a)(2), 

including 110(a)(2)(A) and 

110(a)(2)(E)(i); 7 and (5) SIP revisions as 

set forth in CAA section 110(l) 8 and 

193.9 Our review evaluated the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47048 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

unless the modification ensures equivalent or 

greater emission reductions of the relevant 

pollutants. 

submittal for compliance with the 

NNSR requirements applicable to 

Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, 

and ensured that the submittal 

addressed the NNSR requirements for 

the 1997 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

C. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

With respect to procedural 

requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) 

and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP 

be adopted by the state after reasonable 

notice and public hearing. Based on our 

review of the public process 

documentation included in the 

November 5, 2019 submittal of Rule 

400, we find that the AAD has provided 

sufficient evidence of public notice, 

opportunity for comment and a public 

hearing prior to adoption and submittal 

of these rules to the EPA. 

With respect to the substantive 

requirements found in CAA sections 

172(c)(5) and 173, and 40 CFR 51.160– 

51.165, we have evaluated Rule 400 in 

accordance with the applicable CAA 

and regulatory requirements that apply 

to NNSR permit programs under part D 

of title I of the Act for all relevant ozone 

NAAQS, including the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. With the exceptions noted 

below in Section II.D, we find that Rule 

400 satisfies these requirements as they 

apply to sources subject to the NNSR 

permit program requirements applicable 

to Moderate ozone nonattainment areas. 

We have also determined that this rule 

satisfies the related visibility 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.307. In 

addition, we have determined that Rule 

400 satisfies the requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A) that regulations 

submitted to the EPA for SIP approval 

be clear and legally enforceable, and 

have determined that the submittal 

demonstrates, in accordance with CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), that the District 

has adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out 

these proposed SIP revisions. 

Regarding the additional substantive 

requirements of CAA sections 110(l) and 

193, our action will result in a more 

stringent SIP, while not relaxing any 

existing provision contained in the SIP. 

We have concluded that our action 

would comply with section 110(l) 

because our limited approval of Rule 

400 will not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other CAA applicable 

requirement. In addition, our limited 

approval of Rule 400 will not relax any 

pre-November 15, 1990 requirement in 

the SIP, and therefore changes to the SIP 

resulting from this action ensure greater 

or equivalent emission reductions of 

ozone and its precursors in the District. 

Accordingly, we have concluded that 

our action is consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 193. 

D. What are the rule deficiencies? 

The EPA identified five deficiencies 

in Rule 400. First, Section 4.5 of Rule 

400 allows for the District to approve 

interprecursor trading (IPT) of ozone 

precursors to satisfy emission offset 

requirements, provided certain 

conditions are satisfied. However, on 

January 29, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court 

of Appeals in Sierra Club v. EPA, 984 

F.3d 1055, issued a decision holding 

that the CAA does not allow IPT for 

ozone precursors and vacating the 

provisions in the EPA’s NNSR 

regulations allowing IPT for ozone 

precursors. In light of the Court’s 

decision, the provision in Section 4.5 

allowing for IPT for ozone precursors is 

no longer permissible. Second, Section 

9.1(b)(iii) of Rule 400 fails to reference 

Section 7.4 (Relaxation in Enforceable 

Limitations). This apparent 

typographical error creates a deficiency 

in Section 9.1(b)(iii) of the rule, because 

it suggests that the source and the 

District need not adhere to the General 

requirements for establishing Plant-wide 

Applicability Limitations (PALs) in 

Section 9.4, which are required by 40 

CFR 51.165(f)(4). Third, due to an 

apparent typographical error, Section 

9.5 of the rule does not require the 

District to implement the public 

participation provisions of Section 8 for 

purposes of processing a request for a 

PAL to be established, renewed or 

increased in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.165(f)(5). Therefore, the provisions of 

Section 9.5 are deficient. This error also 

causes a related deficiency in Sections 

9.4(a)(ii), 9.8(b)(iii), 9.10(a), and 9.11(c), 

because these rule sections crossreference Section 9.5, which refers to 

the wrong section of the rule for public 

participation requirements. Fourth, 

Section 9.10(d)(i) references Section 9.5 

when it should reference Section 9.6. 

This error appears typographical in 

nature. However, this error creates a 

deficiency because it does not provide 

the correct reference for how to perform 

the emissions level calculation in 

accordance with 40 CFR 

51.165(f)(10)(iv)(A). Fifth, Section 

9.12(a)(iii) includes a reference to 

Section 7.12 of the rule (which does not 

exist), instead of Section 9.12. This 

apparent typographical error creates a 

deficiency in Section 9.12(a)(iii), 

because it does not include the 

requirement to comply with the 

provisions of Section 9.12 in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.165(f)(12)(i)(C). 

Our TSD, which can be found in the 

docket for this rule, contains a more 

detailed discussion of our analysis of 

Rule 400. 

E. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD also includes 

recommendations for additional 

clarifying revisions to consider for 

adoption when the AAD next modifies 

Rule 400. 

F. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is 

proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the submitted 

rule because it fulfills most of the 

relevant CAA requirements, and 

strengthens the SIP, but also contains 

five deficiencies. We have concluded 

that our limited approval of the 

submitted rule would comply with the 

relevant provisions of CAA sections 

110(a)(2), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 173, and 193, 

40 CFR 51.160–51.165, and 40 CFR 

51.307. 

If we finalize this action as proposed, 

our action will be codified through 

revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a 

(Identification of plan—in part). This 

action would incorporate the submitted 

rule into the SIP, including those 

provisions identified as deficient. This 

approval is limited because the EPA is 

simultaneously proposing a limited 

disapproval of the rule under CAA 

section 110(k)(3). 

If finalized as proposed, our limited 

disapproval action would trigger an 

obligation on the EPA to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

unless the State corrects the 

deficiencies, and the EPA approves the 

related plan revisions, within two years 

of the final action. Additionally, 

because the deficiencies relate to NNSR 

requirements under part D of title I of 

the Act, the offset sanction in CAA 

section 179(b)(2) would apply in 

Amador County 18 months after the 

effective date of a final limited 

disapproval, and the highway funding 

sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) 

would apply in the area six months after 

the offset sanction is imposed. Section 

179 sanctions will not be imposed 

under the CAA if the State submits, and 

we approve, prior to the implementation 

of the sanctions, a SIP revision that 

corrects the deficiencies that we identify 

in our final action. The EPA intends to 

work with the District to correct the 

deficiencies in a timely manner. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47049 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal until September 

22, 2021. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the AAD rule described in Table 1 of 

this preamble. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these materials 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at the EPA Region IX 

Office (please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www.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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 

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, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 9, 2021. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17312 Filed 8–20–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS