81 FR 37170 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Stationary Source Permitting Revisions
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 111 (June 9, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 111 (June 9, 2016)
| Page Range | 37170-37175 | |
| FR Document | 2016-13693 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 37170-37175] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-13693] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0397: FRL-9947-53-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Stationary Source Permitting Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve, and incorporate by reference, revisions to the Idaho State Implementation Plan submitted on May 21, 2015. In the submission, Idaho revised stationary source permitting rules, including the addition of facility-wide emission limits and nonmetallic mineral processing plant regulations. Idaho also added an alternative method for stationary sources to comply with sulfur content of fuels limits, and updated provisions to account for changes to federal air quality regulations. The EPA proposes to approve the submitted revisions as consistent with the Clean Air Act and the EPA's implementing regulations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10- OAR-2015-0397, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from http://www.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 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, 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: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information, the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, or [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. Background II. State Submission III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant Rules C. Sulfur Content of Fuels Provision D. Definitions and Baselines for Fine Particulate Matter E. Incorporation by Reference Updates F. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and Remanding Certain Federal Rules IV. Proposed Action V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) governs the process by which a state submits air quality protection requirements to the EPA for approval into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is the state's plan to implement, maintain and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the EPA. Idaho regularly updates the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01) to reflect changes to the NAAQS and to improve implementation, maintenance and enforcement of those standards. We note that Idaho incorporates by reference portions of certain federal regulations directly into the SIP. The state generally submits an annual update to the EPA to keep rules consistent with federal requirements. II. State Submission On May 21, 2015, Idaho submitted revisions to state air quality rules at IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for approval into the SIP. Idaho adopted these rule changes on November 19 and November [[Page 37171]] 21, 2014. The state provided notice and an opportunity for public comment and hearing on the changes. Notices were published in the Idaho Administrative Bulletin and public hearings were held on September 9 and October 7, 2014. We have evaluated Idaho's submission and propose to find the state has met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110 of the CAA. III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules In the submission, Idaho revised the rules that permit construction and operation of stationary sources. Idaho's changes give certain minor sources the option to apply for facility-wide emission limitations. These limitations, or caps, when incorporated into a minor source permit to construct or Tier II operating permit, are intended to allow minor sources to operate more flexibly, without having to request permit modifications for certain process changes. For example, semiconductor manufacturing facilities make many equipment and process changes as they develop new products and technologies. However, many equipment and process changes do not warrant extensive review as a permit modification. The intent of the facility-wide emissions cap is to set a cap on emissions from a facility, while allowing process changes under certain conditions that may increase emissions. As long as facility emissions stay below the cap and the process changes do not trigger new requirements, the source may be permitted to construct and operate. The new Idaho rules for limiting emissions from minor sources are called the facility-wide emissions cap rules, or ``FEC'' rules, codified at IDAPA 58.01.01.175 through 181. These rules lay out the requirements a minor source must meet to request a FEC limit, and the method for determining the limit. A FEC limit is expressed as tons per year, on a 12-month rolling basis, and may be applied to any criteria pollutant or hazardous air pollutant. The FEC rules do not provide for issuance of a stand-alone permit. Rather, owners or operators of eligible facilities may request a FEC limit be incorporated into a new or existing permit to construct or Tier II operating permit. As stated above, only minor sources are eligible. These include sources that request an emission limit to avoid major source permitting, otherwise known as synthetic minor sources. In our review, we have evaluated the addition of the FEC option to determine if the revised minor source permit to construct and Tier II operating permit programs continue to comply with the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations. We propose to find that they do, and that the FEC rules are approvable for the reasons stated below. First, the FEC rules contain adequate provisions to prevent sources operating under a FEC limit from causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires ``. . . regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source . . . as necessary to assure that the [NAAQS] are achieved.'' The EPA's implementing regulations for minor sources, set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 51.160 through 164, require a state to have procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it will result in a violation of a pollution control strategy, or if it will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. The FEC rules ensure maintenance of the NAAQS by limiting the option to obtain a FEC limit to minor sources and requiring the applicant to demonstrate that operating under the FEC limit will not cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. As stated in IDAPA 58.01.01.176.02.a, major sources, or sources undergoing a major modification, cannot obtain a FEC limit. Moreover, by its terms, the FEC limit is set below major source thresholds. The FEC rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.178.03 through .04 also require recordkeeping and reporting, including an annual report, demonstrating compliance with the FEC limit(s) and maintenance of the NAAQS. Second, the addition of the FEC option does not alleviate any of the application requirements for either the minor source permit to construct program or the Tier II operating permit program. The EPA has already approved Idaho's application procedures for both programs. The EPA approved revisions to Idaho's minor source permit to construct application procedures most recently on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217).\1\ Similarly, the EPA approved revisions to Idaho's Tier II operating permit program most recently on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719).\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ EPA did not approve section .03 of IDAPA 58.01.01.201 because it is related to toxic air pollutants and not the criteria pollutants or other requirements of CAA section 110 (January 16, 2003; 68 FR 2217, at page 2221). \2\ The EPA did not approve section .01.a and section .04 of IDAPA 58.01.01.401, related to alternative emission limits and compliance date extensions (November 26, 2010; 75 FR 72719, at page 72723). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In sum, we are proposing to approve and incorporate by reference the FEC rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.175 through 181 into the Idaho SIP, except as the rules relate to hazardous air pollutants. Hazardous air pollutants are regulated under CAA section 112, and are not appropriate for approval into the SIP. The SIP includes provisions related to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and other specific requirements of CAA section 110. We are also proposing to approve and incorporate by reference the revisions to IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to Construct Required and IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier II Operating Permit to appropriately cross-reference the FEC rules. However, consistent with our previous action on November 26, 2010, we are not approving section .01.a and section .04 of IDAPA 58.01.01.401 because the provisions allow for unbounded director's discretion (75 FR 72719). B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant Rules In the submission, Idaho made changes to streamline the permit process for rock crushers, asphalt plants, and other portable equipment used to process nonmetallic minerals. Instead of continuing to require that a regulated rock crusher obtain a permit to construct before starting operation, Idaho created a permit by rule that establishes controls and other operating parameters that apply to an eligible source upon registration with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. These requirements are codified at IDAPA 58.01.01.790 through 799 Rules for the Control of Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants. Sources that register and operate in compliance with the rules are considered to have a ``permit by rule.'' Only minor sources that operate for less than twelve consecutive months at a single location are eligible for the permit by rule. Sources covered by the Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO are not eligible, nor are new and modified major sources. By extension, rock crushers that are part of a new major source or proposed major modification are not eligible for the permit by rule. The requirements for eligible nonmetallic mineral processing plants specify that obtaining a permit by rule does not relieve the owner or operator of an eligible source from the responsibility of complying with other federal, state and local applicable laws, regulations, and requirements. The rules make clear that sources subject to the NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants, or the NSPS for [[Page 37172]] Portland Cement Plants or Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, must continue to comply with the NSPS limits and controls, as applicable. Provisions in the rules related to NSPS and title V source operating permits (IDAPA 58.01.01.792 and IDAPA 58.01.01.794.04) are generally not appropriate for SIP approval because they are not intended to implement the requirements of CAA section 110. Moreover, the NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO, applies to affected facilities by its terms regardless of Idaho's rule. See 40 CFR 60.670. The nonmetallic mineral processing plant rules set out the registration process and operating parameters for rock crushers and other eligible sources, including limits on the hours of operation, fuel consumptions rates, best management practices, and general controls designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS. The registration procedures for the permit by rule are contained in IDAPA 58.01.01.795 through 799. Owners and operators may choose to operate an eligible plant under the permit by rule by registering the new or modified processing plant fifteen days prior to commencing operation or modification. As part of the registration, the owner or operator must supply information, such as manufacturer, model, and throughput capacity, on the rock crushers, screen decks, and electric generators proposed to be part of the processing plant. Owners and operators who register their nonmetallic mineral processing plants are deemed to have a permit by rule if they operate the plants in accordance with the applicable substantive requirements. In general, the rules prohibit emissions that would be injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or that would interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of life or property. In addition, owners and operators of eligible sources must take all reasonable precautions to prevent the generation of fugitive dust, in addition to meeting specific opacity standards spelled out for categories of activities at areas of operation. Specific requirements sources must meet include fuel restrictions, limits on operating hours, and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for electrical generators at a source. For example, electrical generators must run on American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Grade 1 or 2 fuel oil and must also meet specific sulfur content in fuel restrictions. Sources also must restrict visible emissions from various activities to 20% opacity or less, aggregating more than three minutes in any sixty minute period. NSPS-regulated processing plants are held to stricter opacity limits. In addition to meeting opacity limits, sources must use best management practices to limit fugitive dust from the operation, including controls on paved public roads, unpaved haul roads, transfer points, screening operations, stacks and vents, crushers and grinding mills, and stockpiles. These best management practices are triggered during the course of operations, for instance when observed visible emissions from vehicle traffic approaches the opacity limit, or when citizen complaints come in that have merit. Sources must maintain a daily record of observing the operation, including when events trigger required control strategies and the corrective actions taken. Idaho also amended IDAPA 58.01.01.011 to include new terms supporting the nonmetallic mineral processing plant rules. The new definitions include: ``Best Management Practice,'' ``Control Strategy Trigger,'' ``Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant,'' ``NSPS Regulated Facility or Plant,'' ``Permit by Rule,'' ``Progressive Control Strategy,'' and ``Site of Operations.'' The EPA proposes to determine that the permit by rule provisions for rock crushers and other nonmetallic mineral processing plants are consistent with the types of permit terms and conditions that are generally used when issuing source-specific permits to sources in this category, and may in fact be more prescriptive. We also propose to conclude that the addition of the nonmetallic mineral processing rules are consistent with the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 164. We are therefore proposing to approve IDAPA 58.01.01.011 and IDAPA 58.01.01.790 through 799 into the Idaho SIP, except IDAPA 58.01.01.792, and IDAPA 58.01.01.794.04 because they are not related to the requirements of CAA section 110 and are inappropriate for SIP approval. C. Sulfur Content of Fuels Provision The Idaho sulfur content of fuels provision regulates the sulfur dioxide emissions from stationary sources by setting limits on the sulfur content of residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, and coal that is sold, distributed, used, or made available in Idaho. The provision is located in IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels. In the submission, Idaho revised the rule provision to allow a stationary source--when applying for a permit to construct or operate--to request an alternative method to comply with sulfur in fuel limits. The revision specifies that the alternative may only be allowed if the applicant demonstrates that sulfur dioxide emissions would be equal to or less than emissions would be under the prescribed sulfur content of fuel limits. In other words, to get approval to use a fuel with higher sulfur content, a stationary source must show that, by installing a control device, the source can reduce hourly controlled emissions to less than the maximum hourly emissions from combusting complying fuels. If a demonstration meets the rule requirements, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality may approve the alternative compliance method into a stationary source permit to construct or operating permit. Any permit issued must contain the appropriate source monitoring, record-keeping and reporting requirements, for ensuring compliance, in accordance with Idaho's federally-approved permit to construct and operating permit programs. We note that this rule revision alone does not allow the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to relax any existing permit limits or conditions without also ensuring compliance with existing permit rules. In addition, any modification required for a stationary source to combust higher sulfur fuels, even without increasing allowable emissions, may be subject to preconstruction permitting rules. Based on the information above, we conclude that the rule change is designed to protect the NAAQS, and we propose to approve and incorporate by reference the revision to IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels. D. Definitions and Baselines for Fine Particulate Matter In the submission, Idaho revised IDAPA 58.01.01.006 General Definitions to clarify that the definition of ``Criteria Air Pollutant'' includes fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ), and added specific definitions for PM2.5 and PM2.5 emissions. Idaho also updated the Baselines for Prevention of Significant Deterioration rule section to add major and minor source baseline dates for PM2.5 . We propose to approve these revisions as consistent with the CAA, the EPA's fine particulate matter standards set forth at 40 CFR 50.18, and major and minor source baseline dates and area requirements detailed at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14) and (15). We note that, consistent with our previous action on March 3, 2014, we are not approving [[Page 37173]] the terms defined in sections .49, .50, .51, .66, .67, .68.b, .114, and .116 because these terms relate to toxic air pollutants, not the criteria pollutants and the requirements of CAA section 110 (79 FR 11711). E. Incorporation by Reference Updates Idaho revised section .03 of IDAPA 58.01.01.107 Incorporations by Reference by updating the citation dates that incorporate federal provisions effective as of that date. Paragraph .a incorporates by reference the Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51, with the exception of certain visibility-related provisions, effective July 1, 2014. We note that Idaho did not submit updates to the incorporation of federal provisions relied on as part of the State's nonattainment area major stationary source preconstruction permitting program. Paragraphs .b, .d, and .e of the same section incorporate the following provisions effective July 1, 2014: .b National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR part 50; .d Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods, 40 CFR part 53; and .e Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 CFR part 58. We propose to find that paragraphs .b, .d, and .e are consistent with CAA requirements. Idaho did not submit paragraphs .f through .n for approval because the provisions are not related to CAA section 110 and the criteria pollutants, and are inappropriate for SIP approval. Paragraph .c incorporates the Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 52 subparts A and N, and appendices D and E. This includes the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting rules at 40 CFR 52.21, effective July 1, 2014. We propose to find that paragraph .c is consistent with CAA requirements. We note that specific federal PSD permitting rules have been vacated and remanded by the courts to the EPA. Idaho has responded by submitting rule changes to align the Idaho SIP with the court decisions. Please see Section III. F. below. F. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and Remanding Certain Federal Rules 1. PM2.5 PSD Provisions As discussed above, Idaho incorporates by reference federal PSD permitting requirements. The current Idaho SIP incorporates these rules, codified at 40 CFR 52.21, as of July 1, 2012, except revisions to 40 CFR 52.21(i) (relating to the significant monitoring concentration (SMC)) and 40 CFR 52.21(k) (relating to the significant impact level (SIL)) that added a SMC and SIL for PM2.5 as part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule (October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864). We partially disapproved Idaho's previous submittal incorporating these provisions because they were vacated by a court after Idaho had already adopted and submitted them to the EPA (April 7, 2015, 80 FR 18526). On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA,\3\ issued, with respect to the SMC, a judgment that, among other things, vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5 SMC to the federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). In its decision, the Court held that the EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement in section 165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in all PSD permit applications. Thus, although the PM2.5 SMC was not a required element of a state's PSD program, where a state PSD program contains such a provision and allows issuance of new permits without requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, such application of the vacated SMC would be inconsistent with the Court's opinion and the requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the CAA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the EPA's request, the decision also vacated and remanded the portions of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 related to SILs for PM2.5 . The EPA requested this vacatur and remand of two of the three provisions in the EPA regulations that contain SILs for PM2.5 because the wording of these two SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the explanation of when and how SILs should be used by permitting authorities that we provided in the preamble to the Federal Register publication when we promulgated these provisions. The third SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not vacated and remains in effect. We also note that the Court's decision does not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5 promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule. On December 9, 2013, the EPA amended its regulations to remove the vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from the federal PSD regulations (78 FR 73698). In response, Idaho updated the incorporation by reference of federal PSD regulations to July 1, 2014, capturing the EPA's removal of the vacated provisions. Idaho also revised the ambient air quality analysis requirements for major sources seeking PSD permits (IDAPA 58.01.01.202 Permit to Construct, at section .01) to clarify the appropriate use of a SIL and reference the federal PSD regulation listing SILs. We propose to find that these revisions are consistent with the Court's opinion and current EPA PSD regulations. 2. PSD Deferral of Certain Emissions From Biogenic Sources In 2011, the EPA revised the definition of ``subject to regulation'' at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a). The intent was to defer for three years (until July 21, 2014) PSD permitting for carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources (Deferral for CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs; Final Rule (July 20, 2011, 76 FR 43490) (Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule)). Idaho's SIP incorporates by reference federal PSD permitting rules and includes this deferral provision. On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA,\4\ vacated the Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule. The deferral expired on July 21, 2014, and by its terms is no longer in effect. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. PSD Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency,\5\ issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limits on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision, pending further judicial action before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply the EPA regulations that would require SIPs to include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found [[Page 37174]] impermissible. Specifically, the EPA is not applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). The EPA recently revised federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court decision (May 7, 2015, 80 FR 26183). In addition, we anticipate that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. We do not expect that all states have revised their existing PSD program regulations yet, however, we are evaluating submitted PSD program revision to ensure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs, consistent with the Court's decision. Idaho's current SIP contains the GHG permitting requirements reflected in 40 CFR 52.21, as amended in the Tailoring Rule. As a result, the PSD permitting program in Idaho, previously approved into the SIP, continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limits on GHG emissions, based on the application of BACT, when sources emit or increase GHGs in the amount of 75,000 tons per year (measured as carbon dioxide equivalent). Although the approved Idaho PSD permitting program may also currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not prevent the EPA from approving this SIP submission. Idaho's submission does not add any GHG permitting requirements that are inconsistent with the Supreme Court decision. While Idaho's submission incorporates all of 40 CFR 52.21 for completeness, the submission reincorporates PSD requirements for GHGs already in the Idaho SIP. IV. Proposed Action We propose to approve, and incorporate by reference into the Idaho SIP, changes to the following provisions submitted on May 21, 2015:IDAPA 58.01.01.006 General Definitions, except .49, .50, .51, .66, .67, .68.b, .114, and .116 (State effective 4/11/2014); IDAPA 58.01.01.011 Definitions for the Purposes of Sections 790 through 799 (State effective 3/15/2002); IDAPA 58.01.01.107 Incorporations by Reference, except .03.f through .n, and with respect to .a, the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 51.165 (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.157 Test Methods and Procedures (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.175 Procedures and Requirements for Permits Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.176 Facility Emissions Cap, except for provisions relating to hazardous air pollutants (State effective 4/11/ 2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.177 Application Procedures (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.178 Standard Contents of Permits Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.179 Procedures for Issuing Permits Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.180 Revisions to Permits Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.181 Notice and Record-Keeping of Estimates of Ambient Concentrations (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to Construct Required (State effective 4/11/2006); IDAPA 58.01.01.202 Application Procedures (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier II Operating Permit, except .01.a and .04, (State effective 4/11/2006); IDAPA 58.01.01.579 Baselines for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.790 Rules for the Control of Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants (State effective 3/15/2002); IDAPA 58.01.01.791 General Control Requirements, (State effective 3/15/2002); IDAPA 58.01.01.793 Emissions Standards for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants not Subject to 40 CFR 60, Subpart OOO (State effective 3/15/2002); IDAPA 58.01.01.794 Permit Requirements, except .04 (State effective 4/11/2015); IDAPA 58.01.01.795 Permit by Rule Requirements (State effective 3/15/2002); IDAPA 58.01.01.796 Applicability (State effective 3/15/ 2002); IDAPA 58.01.01.797 Registration for Permit by Rule (State effective 3/15/2002); IDAPA 58.01.01.798 Electrical Generators (State effective 3/15/2002); and IDAPA 58.01.01.799 Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plan Fugitive Dust Best Management Practice (State effective 3/15/2002). V. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference the provisions described above in Section IV. Proposed Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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 (Public Law 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); [[Page 37175]] 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 it does not involve technical standards; and does not provide the 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 26, 2016. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2016-13693 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![37170 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules
less than 26 feet for long term usage. It ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.regulations.gov index. Although
would provide a vessel swing radius of AGENCY listed in the index, some information is
approximately 1,400 feet for each vessel. not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
The contemplated ground would 40 CFR Part 52 information, the disclosure of which is
encompass waters within lines [EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0397: FRL–9947–53– restricted by statute. Certain other
connecting the following points: 41– Region 10] material, such as copyrighted material,
14.02′ N., 073–57.45′ W.; thence to 41– is not placed on the Internet and will be
14.09′ N., 073–57.15′ W.; thence to 41– Approval and Promulgation of publicly available only in hard copy
31.10′ N., 073–57.00′ W.; thence to 41– Implementation Plans; Idaho: form. Publicly available docket
13.18′ N., 073–56.60′ W.; thence to the Stationary Source Permitting materials are available either
Revisions electronically at http://
point of origin (NAD 83).
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Contemplated Yonkers Extension during normal business hours at the
Agency (EPA).
Anchorage Ground Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
We are considering proposing that a Washington 98101.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Yonkers Extension Anchorage Ground Agency (EPA) proposes to approve, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
would cover approximately 715 acres incorporate by reference, revisions to Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, or
for up to 16 vessels with a draft of less the Idaho State Implementation Plan hall.kristin@epa.gov.
than 35 feet for long term usage. It submitted on May 21, 2015. In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
would provide a vessel swing radius of submission, Idaho revised stationary Throughout this document wherever
approximately 1,200 feet for each vessel. source permitting rules, including the ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
The contemplated anchorage ground addition of facility-wide emission limits intended to refer to the EPA.
would encompass waters within lines and nonmetallic mineral processing
connecting the following points: 41– plant regulations. Idaho also added an Table of Contents
00.60′ N., 073–53.61′ W.; thence to 41– alternative method for stationary I. Background
00.60′ N., 073–53.31′ W.; thence to 40– sources to comply with sulfur content of II. State Submission
58.05′ N., 073–53.96′ W.; thence to 40– fuels limits, and updated provisions to III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions
account for changes to federal air A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules
56.96′ N., 073–54.39′ W.; thence to 40– B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant
57.02′ N., 073–54.71′ W.; thence to 40– quality regulations. The EPA proposes
Rules
58.11′ N., 073–54.25′ W.; thence to the to approve the submitted revisions as C. Sulfur Content of Fuels Provision
point of origin (NAD 83). consistent with the Clean Air Act and D. Definitions and Baselines for Fine
the EPA’s implementing regulations. Particulate Matter
E. Information Requested DATES: Comments must be received on E. Incorporation by Reference Updates
or before July 11, 2016. F. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and
Public participation is requested to Remanding Certain Federal Rules
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
assist in determining the best way IV. Proposed Action
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– V. Incorporation by Reference
forward with respect to establishing
OAR–2015–0397, at http:// VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
new anchorage grounds on the Hudson
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
River between Yonkers, NY, to instructions for submitting comments. I. Background
Kingston, NY. To aid us in developing Once submitted, comments cannot be Section 110 of the Clean Air Act
a possible proposed rule, we seek any edited or removed from http:// (CAA) governs the process by which a
comments, whether positive or negative, www.regulations.gov. The EPA may state submits air quality protection
including but not limited to the impacts publish any comment received to its requirements to the EPA for approval
anchorage grounds may have on public docket. Do not submit into the State Implementation Plan
navigation safety and current vessel electronically any information you (SIP). The SIP is the state’s plan to
traffic in this area, the proposed number consider to be Confidential Business implement, maintain and enforce the
and size of vessels anchoring in each Information (CBI) or other information National Ambient Air Quality Standards
proposed anchorage ground, and the the disclosure of which is restricted by (NAAQS) set by the EPA. Idaho
authorized duration for each vessel in statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, regularly updates the Rules for the
each proposed anchorage ground. We video, etc.) must be accompanied by a Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
are also seeking comments on any written comment. The written comment (IDAPA 58.01.01) to reflect changes to
additional locations where anchorage is considered the official comment and the NAAQS and to improve
grounds may be helpful on the Hudson should include discussion of all points implementation, maintenance and
River or any recommended alterations you wish to make. The EPA will enforcement of those standards. We note
to the specific locations considered in generally not consider comments or that Idaho incorporates by reference
this notice. Please submit any comments comment contents located outside of the portions of certain federal regulations
or concerns you may have in accordance primary submission (i.e. on the web, directly into the SIP. The state generally
with the ‘‘Public Participation and cloud, or other file sharing system). For submits an annual update to the EPA to
Request for Comments’’ section above. additional submission methods, the full keep rules consistent with federal
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA public comment policy, requirements.
L.L. Fagan, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on II. State Submission
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander
First Coast Guard District. making effective comments, please visit On May 21, 2015, Idaho submitted
[FR Doc. 2016–13701 Filed 6–8–16; 8:45 am] http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ revisions to state air quality rules at
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
commenting-epa-dockets. IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for approval
Docket: All documents in the into the SIP. Idaho adopted these rule
electronic docket are listed in the http:// changes on November 19 and November
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:19 Jun 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM 09JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_37281/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 37171
21, 2014. The state provided notice and if the revised minor source permit to In sum, we are proposing to approve
an opportunity for public comment and construct and Tier II operating permit and incorporate by reference the FEC
hearing on the changes. Notices were programs continue to comply with the rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.175 through
published in the Idaho Administrative CAA and the EPA’s implementing 181 into the Idaho SIP, except as the
Bulletin and public hearings were held regulations. We propose to find that rules relate to hazardous air pollutants.
on September 9 and October 7, 2014. they do, and that the FEC rules are Hazardous air pollutants are regulated
We have evaluated Idaho’s submission approvable for the reasons stated below. under CAA section 112, and are not
and propose to find the state has met the First, the FEC rules contain adequate appropriate for approval into the SIP.
requirements for reasonable notice and provisions to prevent sources operating The SIP includes provisions related to
public hearing under section 110 of the under a FEC limit from causing or attainment and maintenance of the
CAA. contributing to a violation of the NAAQS, and other specific
NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requirements of CAA section 110. We
III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions are also proposing to approve and
requires ‘‘. . . regulation of the
A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules modification and construction of any incorporate by reference the revisions to
stationary source . . . as necessary to IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to Construct
In the submission, Idaho revised the
assure that the [NAAQS] are achieved.’’ Required and IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier
rules that permit construction and
The EPA’s implementing regulations for II Operating Permit to appropriately
operation of stationary sources. Idaho’s
minor sources, set forth in the Code of cross-reference the FEC rules. However,
changes give certain minor sources the
Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR consistent with our previous action on
option to apply for facility-wide
51.160 through 164, require a state to November 26, 2010, we are not
emission limitations. These limitations,
have procedures to prevent construction approving section .01.a and section .04
or caps, when incorporated into a minor of IDAPA 58.01.01.401 because the
source permit to construct or Tier II or modification of a source if it will
result in a violation of a pollution provisions allow for unbounded
operating permit, are intended to allow director’s discretion (75 FR 72719).
minor sources to operate more flexibly, control strategy, or if it will interfere
without having to request permit with the attainment or maintenance of B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant
modifications for certain process a NAAQS. Rules
changes. The FEC rules ensure maintenance of
the NAAQS by limiting the option to In the submission, Idaho made
For example, semiconductor changes to streamline the permit
manufacturing facilities make many obtain a FEC limit to minor sources and
process for rock crushers, asphalt
equipment and process changes as they requiring the applicant to demonstrate
plants, and other portable equipment
develop new products and technologies. that operating under the FEC limit will
used to process nonmetallic minerals.
However, many equipment and process not cause or contribute to a violation of
Instead of continuing to require that a
changes do not warrant extensive a NAAQS. As stated in IDAPA
regulated rock crusher obtain a permit
review as a permit modification. The 58.01.01.176.02.a, major sources, or
to construct before starting operation,
intent of the facility-wide emissions cap sources undergoing a major
Idaho created a permit by rule that
is to set a cap on emissions from a modification, cannot obtain a FEC limit.
establishes controls and other operating
facility, while allowing process changes Moreover, by its terms, the FEC limit is
parameters that apply to an eligible
under certain conditions that may set below major source thresholds. The
source upon registration with the Idaho
increase emissions. As long as facility FEC rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.178.03 Department of Environmental Quality.
emissions stay below the cap and the through .04 also require recordkeeping These requirements are codified at
process changes do not trigger new and reporting, including an annual IDAPA 58.01.01.790 through 799 Rules
requirements, the source may be report, demonstrating compliance with for the Control of Nonmetallic Mineral
permitted to construct and operate. the FEC limit(s) and maintenance of the Processing Plants. Sources that register
The new Idaho rules for limiting NAAQS. and operate in compliance with the
emissions from minor sources are called Second, the addition of the FEC rules are considered to have a ‘‘permit
the facility-wide emissions cap rules, or option does not alleviate any of the by rule.’’ Only minor sources that
‘‘FEC’’ rules, codified at IDAPA application requirements for either the operate for less than twelve consecutive
58.01.01.175 through 181. These rules minor source permit to construct months at a single location are eligible
lay out the requirements a minor source program or the Tier II operating permit for the permit by rule. Sources covered
must meet to request a FEC limit, and program. The EPA has already approved by the Federal New Source Performance
the method for determining the limit. A Idaho’s application procedures for both Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60,
FEC limit is expressed as tons per year, programs. The EPA approved revisions subpart OOO are not eligible, nor are
on a 12-month rolling basis, and may be to Idaho’s minor source permit to new and modified major sources. By
applied to any criteria pollutant or construct application procedures most extension, rock crushers that are part of
hazardous air pollutant. The FEC rules recently on January 16, 2003 (68 FR a new major source or proposed major
do not provide for issuance of a stand- 2217).1 Similarly, the EPA approved modification are not eligible for the
alone permit. Rather, owners or revisions to Idaho’s Tier II operating permit by rule.
operators of eligible facilities may permit program most recently on The requirements for eligible
request a FEC limit be incorporated into November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719).2 nonmetallic mineral processing plants
a new or existing permit to construct or specify that obtaining a permit by rule
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 EPA did not approve section .03 of IDAPA
Tier II operating permit. As stated does not relieve the owner or operator
58.01.01.201 because it is related to toxic air
above, only minor sources are eligible. pollutants and not the criteria pollutants or other of an eligible source from the
These include sources that request an requirements of CAA section 110 (January 16, 2003; responsibility of complying with other
emission limit to avoid major source 68 FR 2217, at page 2221). federal, state and local applicable laws,
2 The EPA did not approve section .01.a and
permitting, otherwise known as regulations, and requirements. The rules
section .04 of IDAPA 58.01.01.401, related to
synthetic minor sources. alternative emission limits and compliance date
make clear that sources subject to the
In our review, we have evaluated the extensions (November 26, 2010; 75 FR 72719, at NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral
addition of the FEC option to determine page 72723). Processing Plants, or the NSPS for
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:19 Jun 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM 09JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_37281/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 37175
• is not a significant regulatory action administrative and equipment changes withdraw the direct final rule and will
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR at the facility. The name of the facility address all public comments received in
28355, May 22, 2001); has changed to BAE Technology Center. a subsequent final rule based on this
• is not subject to requirements of The revision will result in a significant proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
Section 12(d) of the National decrease in SO2 emissions and will second comment period. Any parties
Technology Transfer and Advancement support the continued attainment and interested in commenting on this action
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because maintenance of the SO2 national should do so at this time. Please note
it does not involve technical standards; ambient air quality standard in the Twin that if EPA receives adverse comment
and Cities area. on an amendment, paragraph, or section
• does not provide the EPA with the DATES: Comments must be received on of this rule, and if that provision can be
discretionary authority to address, as or before July 11, 2016. severed from the remainder of the rule,
appropriate, disproportionate human ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
health or environmental effects, using identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– of the rule that are not the subject of an
practicable and legally permissible OAR–2016–0136 at http:// adverse comment. For additional
methods, under Executive Order 12898 www.regulations.gov or via email to information, see the direct final rule
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments which is located in the Rules section of
In addition, the SIP is not approved submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the this Federal Register.
to apply on any Indian reservation land online instructions for submitting Dated: May 31, 2016.
or in any other area where the EPA or comments. Once submitted, comments Robert A. Kaplan
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a cannot be edited or removed from Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Regulations.gov. For either manner of
[FR Doc. 2016–13603 Filed 6–8–16; 8:45 am]
Indian country, the rule does not have submission, EPA may publish any
tribal implications as specified by BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
comment received to its public docket.
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, Do not submit electronically any
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose information you consider to be
substantial direct costs on tribal Confidential Business Information (CBI) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
governments or preempt tribal law. or other information whose disclosure is HUMAN SERVICES
restricted by statute. Multimedia
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
Environmental protection, Air accompanied by a written comment. Services
pollution control, Incorporation by The written comment is considered the
reference, Intergovernmental relations, official comment and should include 42 CFR Parts 405, 412, 413, and 485
Particulate matter, Reporting and discussion of all points you wish to [CMS–1655–CN]
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur make. EPA will generally not consider
oxides. comments or comment contents located RIN 0938–AS77
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient
Dated: May 26, 2016. Prospective Payment Systems for
system). For additional submission
Dennis J. McLerran, methods, please contact the person Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-
Regional Administrator, Region 10. identified in the FOR FURTHER Term Care Hospital Prospective
[FR Doc. 2016–13693 Filed 6–8–16; 8:45 am] INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the Payment System and Proposed Policy
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P full EPA public comment policy, Changes and Fiscal Year 2017 Rates;
information about CBI or multimedia Quality Reporting Requirements for
submissions, and general guidance on Specific Providers; Graduate Medical
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION making effective comments, please visit Education; Hospital Notification
AGENCY http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ Procedures Applicable to Beneficiaries
commenting-epa-dockets. Receiving Observation Services; and
40 CFR Part 52 Technical Changes Relating to Costs
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0136; FRL–9947–49– Charles Hatten, Environmental to Organizations and Medicare Cost
Region 5] Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Reports; Correction
Programs Branch (AR–18J), AGENCY: Centers for Medicare &
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur Environmental Protection Agency,
Dioxide Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031,
Agency (EPA). hatten.charles@epa.gov. SUMMARY: This document corrects
ACTION: Proposed rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the technical and typographical errors in
Final Rules section of this Federal the proposed rule that appeared in the
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Register, EPA is approving Minnesota’s Federal Register on April 27, 2016 titled
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a SO2 SIP submittal as a direct final rule ‘‘Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient
revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide without prior proposal because the Prospective Payment Systems for Acute
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Agency views this as a noncontroversial Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care
for ELT Minneapolis, LLC’s River Road submittal and anticipates no adverse Hospital Prospective Payment System
Industrial Center located in Fridley, comments. A detailed rationale for the and Proposed Policy Changes and Fiscal
Anoka County, Minnesota. The revision, approval is set forth in the direct final Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting
submitted by the Minnesota Pollution rule. If EPA does not receive adverse Requirements for Specific Providers;
Control Agency on February 24, 2016, comments in response to this rule, no Graduate Medical Education; Hospital
updates information updates further activity is contemplated. If EPA Notification Procedures Applicable to
information to reflect both receives adverse comments, EPA will Beneficiaries Receiving Observation
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:19 Jun 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM 09JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_37281/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-08 07:33:28
Document Modified: 2018-02-08 07:33:28
| 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 | Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2016. | |
| Contact | Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, or [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 37170 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Sulfur Oxides |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR