80 FR 26210 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 88 (May 7, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 88 (May 7, 2015)
| Page Range | 26210-26212 | |
| FR Document | 2015-10629 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 26210-26212] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-10629] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071; FRL-9926-97-OAR] RIN 2060-AS57 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program regulations to allow for rescission of certain PSD permits issued by the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities under Step 2 of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule). We are proposing to take this action in order to provide a mechanism for the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind PSD permits that are no longer required in light of the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court's decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation (Coalition) v. EPA, vacating that rule. These decisions determined that Step 2 of the Tailoring [[Page 26211]] Rule was not required by the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and vacated the EPA regulations implementing Step 2. When effective, this action would authorize the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind Step 2 GHG PSD permits in response to requests from applicants who can demonstrate that they are eligible for permit rescission. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, we are amending the federal PSD program regulations as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment in response to the direct final rule, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. DATES: Written comments must be received by June 8, 2015. Public Hearing: If anyone contacts the EPA by May 18, 2015, requesting to speak at a public hearing on this action, the EPA will hold a public hearing on May 22, 2015 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The EPA will not hold a hearing if one is not requested. Please check the EPA's Web page at http://www.epa.gov/nsr on May 19, 2015 for the announcement of whether the hearing will be held. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2015-0071, by mail to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Jessica Monta[ntilde]ez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-3407, email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What are the details for the potential public hearing? If there is a public hearing, it will be held at the EPA, Building C, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27709; the room number will be announced on the NSR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/nsr. If requested, the hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning this action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because this hearing will be held at U.S. government facilities, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. These requirements took effect July 21, 2014. If your driver's license is issued by American Samoa, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire or New York, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal buildings where the public hearings will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses and military identification cards. For additional information for the status of your state regarding REAL ID, go to http://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. If held, the public hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. and continue until 5:00 p.m., if necessary, depending on the number of speakers. The EPA may end the hearing early if all registered speakers have had an opportunity to speak, but no earlier than 2:00 p.m. Persons wishing to present oral testimony that have not made arrangements in advance should register by 2:00 p.m. the day of the hearing. Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes per commenter. The EPA encourages commenters to provide written versions of their oral testimonies either electronically (on computer disk or CD-ROM) or in paper copy. Verbatim transcripts and written statements will be included in the rulemaking docket. If you want to request a hearing and present oral testimony at the hearing, you should notify, on or before May 18, 2015, Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C504-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0641, email [email protected]. The hearing will be strictly limited to the subject matter of the proposal, the scope of which is discussed below. Any member of the public may file a written comment by the close of the comment period. Written comments should be submitted to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071 at the addresses given above for submittal of comments. If a hearing is held, the hearing schedule, including the list of speakers, will be posted on the EPA's Web page at http://www.epa.gov/nsr. A verbatim transcript of the hearing, if held, and written comments will be made available for copying during normal working hours at the EPA Docket Center address given above for inspection of documents. II. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule? The EPA is proposing to take action to amend the federal PSD program regulation at 40 CFR 52.21 to allow existing PSD permits that were issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule \1\ for GHGs to be rescinded. This proposed action narrowly amends the permit rescission provisions in the federal PSD regulations found in 40 CFR 52.21(w) to allow for the rescission of EPA-issued PSD permits \2\ that were issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule permitting regulations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v). \2\ The terms ``EPA-issued PSD permits that were issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule'' and ``EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits'' both refer to PSD permits issued by the EPA as well as by delegated reviewing authorities under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court determined the permitting requirements under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule to be invalid in UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part an earlier decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In further proceedings upon consideration of the Supreme Court decision, the D.C. Circuit amended its judgment in the Coalition case. The Amended Judgment vacated particular provisions of the EPA's regulations implementing Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule. This proposed action does not itself rescind any permits; it only proposes the regulatory mechanism through which the EPA could then rescind, upon request of a source, an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. Furthermore, we have published a direct final rule amending these federal PSD program regulations in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate [[Page 26212]] no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment in response to the direct final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the direct final rule will not take effect. In that case, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document. The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register. For further supplementary information, the detailed rationale for the proposal and the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published in a separate part of this Federal Register. Neither this rule or direct final rule address any issues concerning the federal PSD permit rescission regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(w) that are not related to the Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. The EPA is developing a separate rulemaking action that will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on others circumstances where 40 CFR 52.21(w) may limit the ability to rescind PSD permits that are no longer necessary. III. Does this action apply to me? The entities potentially affected by this rule include new and modified stationary sources that were required to obtain an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit under the federal PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 solely because the source or a modification of the source was expected to emit or increase GHG emissions over the applicable thresholds. This includes (1) sources classified as major for PSD purposes solely on the basis of their potential GHG emissions; and (2) sources emitting major amounts of other pollutants that experienced a modification resulting in an increase of only greenhouse gas emission above the applicable levels in the EPA regulations. Entities affected by this rule may also include state or local reviewing authorities that have been delegated federal authority to implement the federal PSD regulations under 40 CFR 52.21(u) and that have issued Step 2 PSD permits to sources within their jurisdiction. This rule does not address the requirements for approval of a PSD program into a state implementation plan (40 CFR 51.166) or the rescission of PSD permits issued by states and local programs with such approved programs. Stationary sources with questions on the PSD permitting obligations arising from Step 2 PSD permits issued by state or local reviewing authorities under the permitting programs approved into state implementation plans should review the governing statutory provisions and provisions in the applicable approved state or local permitting program to determine how to address any Step 2 PSD permitting issues and consult with the EPA as necessary. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, National ambient air quality standards, New source review, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permit rescissions, Preconstruction permitting, Sulfur oxides, Tailoring rule, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 30, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2015-10629 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![26210 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Supply Contracts for a Specified Portion of Ass’n v. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading person or class of persons, any swap or class
an Entity’s Physical Need for a Commodity Comm’n, 887 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D.D.C. 2012). of swaps, any contract of sale of a commodity
(e.g., peaking supply contracts) I strongly disagree, however, with the for future delivery or class of such contracts,
As noted above, concerns have also been Commission’s statement that it preliminarily any option or class of options, or any
raised about the appropriate treatment of believes that any future application of transaction or class of transactions from any
peaking supply contracts which are often position limits would be best addressed in requirement it may establish . . . with
used by companies to manage the risks the context of the pending position limits respect to position limits.’’
attendant to their need for physical rulemaking. Simply put, position limits for As long as the specter of position limits
commodities that may be used to generate trade options are not ‘‘necessary to diminish, hangs over trade options, market participants
electricity, run an operating plant, or eliminate, or prevent’’ excessive speculation. that have used these instruments for decades
manufacture or supply other goods and Section 4a(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange as a cost effective means of ensuring a
services. Act (CEA). The final trade options rule reliable supply of a physical commodity and
Market participants have raised concerns should make clear that trade options are to hedge commercial risk will be reluctant to
about whether or not these contracts could be exempt from position limits. use them. As I have said before, commercial
considered commodity options. In instances As the Commission recognized in end-users, including commercial end-users of
where these contracts represent a reservation promulgating the interim final rule everyday trade options, were not the cause of
of a portion of supplier’s capacity to provide establishing the trade options exemption, the financial crisis and the federal
a particular commodity and not a transaction ‘‘position limits apply only to speculative government should stop treating them like
for the commodity itself, it seems possible positions. . . . Trade options, which are they were.
these contracts may not be commodity commonly used as hedging instruments or in I urge my fellow Commissioners to
options. One test that has been proposed to connection with some commercial function, eliminate this regulatory uncertainty sooner,
determine whether or not such contracts are would normally qualify as hedges, exempt rather than later, by exercising our section
commodity options is whether: from the speculative position limit rules.’’ 4a(a)(7) authority in connection with this
1. The subject of the agreement, contract or Commodity Options, 77 FR 25320, 25328 trade options rulemaking. I encourage further
transaction is a binding, sole-source, n.50 (Apr. 27, 2012). public comment on the issue.
obligation of a supplier of a physical By definition, the offeree to a trade option
[FR Doc. 2015–11020 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am]
commodity to stand ready to meet a specified ‘‘must be a producer, commercial user of, or
a merchant handling the commodity that is BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
portion of a commercial consumer’s physical
need for a commodity through providing for the subject of the commodity option
the physical delivery of that commodity to transaction, or the products or by-products
the specified commercial consumer or its thereof,’’ and must restrict the use of trade ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
designee in connection with the physical options ‘‘solely for purposes related to its
AGENCY
obligation, business as such.’’ § 32.3(a)(2). Moreover, the
2. The payment provided by the ‘‘option must be intended to be physically
40 CFR Part 52
commercial consumer to the commercial settled, so that, if exercised, [it] would result
supplier for such agreement, contract or in the sale of an exempt or agricultural [EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0071; FRL–9926–97–
transaction is in the nature of a reservation commodity for immediate or deferred OAR]
charge to provide the service of standing shipment or delivery.’’ § 32.3(a)(3). Given
ready to meet the physical needs of the these parameters, the risk that trade options RIN 2060–AS57
commercial consumer, could be used to engage in speculation, much
3. Payment for any commodity delivered less excessive speculation, is so remote as to Prevention of Significant Deterioration
under such agreement, contract or be virtually non-existent. Permitting for Greenhouse Gases:
transaction is at the market price for that Applying a position limits regime to trade Providing Option for Rescission of
commodity at the time of delivery (i.e., the options and requiring commercial end-users EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2
agreement, contract, or transaction is not to seek bona fide hedge treatment for those Prevention of Significant Deterioration
used to hedge price risk), and transactions, which was floated as a
4. The agreement, contract or transaction is possibility in the pending proposed position
Permits
necessary to meet the commercial consumer’s limits rule, would not be an acceptable AGENCY: Environmental Protection
projected physical needs or is required by outcome. See Position Limits for Derivatives, Agency (EPA).
regulation. 78 FR 75680, 75711 (Dec. 12, 2013). As
I think the Commission would benefit from commenters to the proposed position limits ACTION: Proposed rule.
receiving comments on this proposed test rule have pointed out, there is no regulatory
and peaking supply contracts more generally benefit to imposing position limits on SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
as it appears to be one of the significant instruments that inherently are not Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the
outstanding issues regarding instruments that speculative in nature, and doing so ‘‘will federal Prevention of Significant
may or may not be trade options. distort commodity markets and impede Deterioration (PSD) program regulations
Together, these two additional items may economically efficient behavior’’ by to allow for rescission of certain PSD
help address outstanding concerns that have discouraging the use of trade options. Natural permits issued by the EPA and
been expressed by commercial market Gas Supply Association Comment Letter
participants, and I think the Commission
delegated reviewing authorities under
dated Aug. 4, 2014 at 13. A comment letter
would benefit by getting comment upon Step 2 of the Prevention of Significant
filed by the Edison Electric Institute and the
them. Electric Power Supply Association (Joint Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse
Associations) cites persuasive examples of Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule (Tailoring
Appendix 4—Statement of Rule). We are proposing to take this
how application of the proposed position
Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo limits rule would eliminate the ability of action in order to provide a mechanism
I support the Commission’s proposed market participants to enter into multi-month for the EPA and delegated reviewing
amendments to the interim final trade and multi-year trade options. See Joint authorities to rescind PSD permits that
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
options rule. These are common sense Associations Comment Letter dated Feb. 7, are no longer required in light of the
reforms that will alleviate certain 2014 at 6–7; see also American Gas United States (U.S.) Supreme Court’s
recordkeeping and reporting burdens that Association Comment Letter dated Feb. 10,
decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group
§ 32.3 currently imposes on end-users that 2014 at 5 (the lack of a contractual upper
use trade options to manage commercial risk. limit in the way that natural gas options are (UARG) v. EPA and the amended
The deletion of the reference in § 32.3(c)(2) structured make position limit reporting appeals court judgment in Coalition for
to part 151 position limits is also appropriate impossible). Responsible Regulation (Coalition) v.
in light of the fact that part 151 was vacated The Commission has the authority in EPA, vacating that rule. These decisions
by the court in Int’l Swaps & Derivatives section 4a(a)(7) of the CEA to exempt ‘‘any determined that Step 2 of the Tailoring
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:16 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM 07MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26298/page/1.svg)
![26212 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules
no adverse comment. We have implement the federal PSD regulations for the Birmingham area from 7.8
explained our reasons for this action in under 40 CFR 52.21(u) and that have pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi
the preamble to the direct final rule. issued Step 2 PSD permits to sources for gasoline. The EPA has preliminarily
If we receive no adverse comment, we within their jurisdiction. This rule does determined that this change to the
will not take further action on this not address the requirements for federal RVP regulation is consistent
proposed rule. If the EPA receives approval of a PSD program into a state with the applicable provisions of the
adverse comment in response to the implementation plan (40 CFR 51.166) or Clean Air Act (CAA).
direct final rule, we will publish a the rescission of PSD permits issued by DATES: Written comments must be
timely withdrawal in the Federal states and local programs with such received on or before June 8, 2015
Register informing the public that the approved programs. Stationary sources unless a public hearing is requested by
direct final rule will not take effect. In with questions on the PSD permitting May 22, 2015. If the EPA receives such
that case, we would address all public obligations arising from Step 2 PSD a request, we will publish information
comments in any subsequent final rule permits issued by state or local related to the timing and location of the
based on this proposed rule. reviewing authorities under the hearing and a new deadline for public
We do not intend to institute a second permitting programs approved into state comment.
comment period on this action. Any implementation plans should review the
parties interested in commenting must ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
governing statutory provisions and identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
do so at this time. For further provisions in the applicable approved
information about commenting on this OAR–2014–0905, by one of the
state or local permitting program to following methods:
rule, please see the information determine how to address any Step 2
provided in the ADDRESSES section of • www.regulations.gov: Follow the
PSD permitting issues and consult with on-line instructions for submitting
this document. the EPA as necessary.
The regulatory text for the proposal is comments.
identical to that for the direct final rule List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 • Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
published in the ‘‘Rules and • Mail: Air Docket, Environmental
Environmental protection, Air Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T,
Regulations’’ section of this Federal pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Register. For further supplementary 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by Washington, DC 20460, Attention
information, the detailed rationale for reference, Intergovernmental relations,
the proposal and the regulatory Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–
Lead, National ambient air quality 0905. Please include a total of two
revisions, see the direct final rule standards, New source review, Nitrogen
published in a separate part of this copies.
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, • Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation
Federal Register. Permit rescissions, Preconstruction
Neither this rule or direct final rule Docket, EPA Docket Center, WJC West
permitting, Sulfur oxides, Tailoring Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
address any issues concerning the
rule, Volatile organic compounds. Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
federal PSD permit rescission
regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(w) that are Dated: April 30, 2015. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
not related to the Supreme Court Gina McCarthy, OAR–2014–0905. Please include two
decision in UARG v. EPA and the Administrator. copies. Such deliveries are accepted
amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. [FR Doc. 2015–10629 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am] only during the Docket’s normal hours
The EPA is developing a separate BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
of operation, and special arrangements
rulemaking action that will provide an should be made for deliveries of boxed
opportunity for the public to comment information.
on others circumstances where 40 CFR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Instructions: Direct your comments to
52.21(w) may limit the ability to rescind AGENCY Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–
PSD permits that are no longer 0905. The EPA’s policy is that all
necessary. 40 CFR Part 80 comments received will be included in
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0905; FRL 9927–15–
the public docket without change and
III. Does this action apply to me? may be made available online at
OAR]
The entities potentially affected by www.regulations.gov, including any
this rule include new and modified RIN 2060–AS58 personal information provided, unless
stationary sources that were required to the comment includes information
obtain an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor claimed to be Confidential Business
under the federal PSD regulations found Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard Information (CBI) or other information
at 40 CFR 52.21 solely because the for Birmingham, Alabama whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
source or a modification of the source AGENCY: Environmental Protection Do not submit information that you
was expected to emit or increase GHG Agency. consider to be CBI or otherwise
emissions over the applicable ACTION: Proposed rule. protected through www.regulations.gov
thresholds. This includes (1) sources or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
classified as major for PSD purposes SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
solely on the basis of their potential Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a which means that the EPA will not
GHG emissions; and (2) sources emitting request from the state of Alabama for the know your identity or contact
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
major amounts of other pollutants that EPA to relax the Reid Vapor Pressure information unless you provide it in the
experienced a modification resulting in (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline body of your comment. If you send an
an increase of only greenhouse gas introduced into commerce from June 1 email comment directly to the EPA
emission above the applicable levels in to September 15 of each year for without going through
the EPA regulations. Entities affected by Jefferson and Shelby counties (‘‘the www.regulations.gov your email address
this rule may also include state or local Birmingham area’’). Specifically, the will be automatically captured and
reviewing authorities that have been EPA is proposing to amend the included as part of the comment that is
delegated federal authority to regulations to change the RVP standard placed in the public docket and made
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:16 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM 07MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26298/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:50:04
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:50:04
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received by June 8, 2015. | |
| Contact | Mrs. Jessica Monta[ntilde]ez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-3407, email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 26210 | |
| RIN Number | 2060-AS57 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Greenhouse Gases; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Lead; National Ambient Air Quality Standards; New Source Review; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Permit Rescissions; Preconstruction Permitting; Sulfur Oxides; Tailoring Rule and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR