81 FR 4884 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Inver Hills SO2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 18 (January 28, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 18 (January 28, 2016)
| Page Range | 4884-4886 | |
| FR Document | 2016-01577 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 18 (Thursday, January 28, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 4884-4886] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-01577] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0366; FRL-9941-53-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Inver Hills SO2 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Northern States Power Company's Xcel Energy-Inver Hills Generating Plant (Inver Hills), located in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. The revision, submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on May 1, 2015, incorporates a more stringent limit for the sulfur content of the fuel used at the facility, and modifies the fuel analysis requirements to meet the more stringent limit. These revisions will not result in an increase in SO2 emissions at the facility. DATES: This rule is effective on March 28, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by February 29, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05- OAR-2015-0366 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to blakley.pamela@epa.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. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, hatten.charles@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What is the background for this action? II. What changes are being made to the SO2 SIP for Inver Hills? III. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submission? IV. What action is EPA taking? V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action? The Inver Hills facility is a 440 Megawatt peak demand electrical generation plant. The plant has six generation units, turbines EU 001- EU 006, which can burn both natural gas and distillate fuel oil. In 1980, Inver Hills was identified by the state of Minnesota as a culpable source in the Pine Bend portion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul SO2 nonattainment area in Dakota County. On July 28, 1992, MPCA issued an administrative order for Inver Hills to address the source's contribution to the nonattainment [[Page 4885]] problem. The SIP revision containing the administrative order was approved by EPA on September 9, 1994 (59 FR 46553). The area was subsequently redesignated to attainment of the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on May 13, 1997 (62 FR 26230), and is now a maintenance area for SO2 . On June 8, 2004 (69 FR 31891), EPA approved a Minnesota SO2 SIP revision, replacing the administrative order with Title I conditions for the Inver Hills facility. In addition, on December 5, 2007 (72 FR 68508), EPA approved a Minnesota SO2 SIP revision, updating the Title I conditions for the Inver Hills facility. II. What changes are being made to the SO2 SIP for Inver Hills? On May 1, 2015, MPCA submitted a request to EPA to revise the Title I SIP conditions in the SO2 SIP for the six electric generating turbines at the Inver Hills facility. The SIP revision reduces the allowable sulfur content limit for all fuels delivered to the facility from 0.48 percent by weight to 0.005 percent by weight. In addition, the SIP revision updates the requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance with this more stringent fuel limit. The Inver Hills SIP revision contains two methods for determining compliance with the sulfur limit for fuel oil. Method A requires Inver Hills to sample the fuel upon delivery to demonstrate compliance with the new lower fuel sulfur limit of 0.005 percent by weight. Method B requires the fuel supplier to provide a guarantee that the fuel oil has a sulfur content below a specific limit. If the fuel oil supplier provides that guarantee, Inver Hills is not required to conduct any additional sampling or analysis of the fuel oil. Since no sampling is required, the SIP revision reduces the sulfur content limit under Method B from 0.10 percent by weight to 0.0015 percent by weight. III. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submission? The SIP revision submitted by Minnesota imposes more stringent limits on the sulfur content of the fuel used at the Inver Hills facility. In addition, the provisions for demonstrating compliance have been revised to reflect the more stringent fuel limits. A modeling analysis was not conducted for the Inver Hills because the SIP revision imposes more stringent SO2 emission limits at the facility, resulting in a decrease in SO2 emissions. Because the revision strengthens the existing SO2 SIP for Inver Hills, EPA deems the submittal approvable. IV. What action is EPA taking? EPA is approving the request by Minnesota to revise the Title I SIP conditions in Minnesota's SO2 SIP that apply to the Inver Hills facility. Specifically, EPA is approving into the SIP only those portions of Inver Hills' Title V permit, No. 03700015-004, cited as ``Title I Condition: State Implementation Plan for SO2 .'' These Title I SIP conditions replace the current SO2 SIP for Inver Hills. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective March 28, 2016 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by February 29, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective March 28, 2016. V. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Minnesota regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through 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 Clean Air Act (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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a [[Page 4886]] report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 28, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide. Dated: January 13, 2016. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 0 2. In Sec. 52.1220, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising the entry for ``Xcel Energy-Inver Hills Generating Plant'' to read as follows: Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan. * * * * * (d) * * * EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State Name of Source Permit No. effective date EPA Approval date Comments ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * Xcel Energy-Inver Hills 03700015-004 07/16/14 01/28/16, [Insert Only conditions cited as Generating Plant. Federal Register ``Title I condition: citation]. SIP for SO2 NAAQS.'' * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * [FR Doc. 2016-01577 Filed 1-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![4884 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ beginning at lat. 39°43′57″ N., long. submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
paragraph 5–6.5a. This airspace action 121°45′28″ W., clockwise along the Chico online instructions for submitting
is not expected to cause any potentially Municipal Airport 6-mile radius to lat. comments. Once submitted, comments
39°41′45″ N., long. 121°50′42″ W.; thence cannot be edited or removed from
significant environmental impacts, and
along the 174° bearing to lat. 39°43′38″ N.,
no extraordinary circumstances exist long. 121°51′05″ W., thence counter-
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
that warrant preparation of an clockwise along the Ranchaero Airport 1- submission, EPA may publish any
environmental assessment. mile radius to lat. 39°43′50″ N., long. comment received to its public docket.
121°53′12″ W., thence along the 200° bearing Do not submit electronically any
Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 information you consider to be
to the Chico Municipal Airport 6-mile radius,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, thence clockwise to lat. 39°53′31″ N., long. Confidential Business Information (CBI)
Navigation (air). 121°53′31″ W.; thence to lat. 39°51′48″ N., or other information whose disclosure is
long. 121°52′04″ W., clockwise along the restricted by statute. Multimedia
Adoption of the Amendment Chico Municipal Airport 4.1-mile radius to submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
In consideration of the foregoing, the lat. 39°45′40″ N., long. 121°46′54″ W.; thence accompanied by a written comment.
Federal Aviation Administration to the point of beginning.
The written comment is considered the
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January official comment and should include
15, 2016. discussion of all points you wish to
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Tracey Johnson, make. EPA will generally not consider
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR Manager, Operations Support Group, Western comments or comment contents located
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND Service Center. outside of the primary submission (i.e.
REPORTING POINTS [FR Doc. 2016–01502 Filed 1–27–16; 8:45 am] on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
■ 1. The authority citation for Part 71 BILLING CODE 4910–13–P system). For additional submission
continues to read as follows: methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. AGENCY full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
§ 71.1 [Amended] 40 CFR Part 52 submissions, and general guidance on
■ 2. The incorporation by reference in making effective comments, please visit
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0366; FRL–9941–53–
14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Region 5]
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
Airspace Designations and Reporting commenting-epa-dockets.
Points, dated August 6, 2015, and Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Inver FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
effective September 15, 2015, is Hills SO2 Charles Hatten, Environmental
amended as follows: Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. Agency (EPA). Environmental Protection Agency,
* * * * * ACTION: Direct final rule. Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
AWP CA D Chico, CA [Modified] Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031,
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection hatten.charles@epa.gov.
Chico Municipal Airport, CA Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to
(Lat. 39°47′43″ N., long. 121°51′30″ W.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State
Ranchaero Airport, Chico, CA Throughout this document whenever
(Lat. 39°43′10″ N., long. 121°52′14″ W.) Implementation Plan (SIP) for Northern
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
States Power Company’s Xcel Energy-
That airspace extending upward from the EPA. This supplementary information
surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL Inver Hills Generating Plant (Inver
section is arranged as follows:
within a 4.1-mile radius of Chico Municipal Hills), located in Inver Grove Heights,
Airport, excluding the portion within a 1- Minnesota. The revision, submitted by I. What is the background for this action?
mile radius of Ranchaero Airport. This Class the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency II. What changes are being made to the SO2
D airspace area is effective during the SIP for Inver Hills?
(MPCA) on May 1, 2015, incorporates a
specific dates and times established in III. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s
more stringent limit for the sulfur submission?
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective content of the fuel used at the facility,
date and time will thereafter be continuously IV. What action is EPA taking?
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
and modifies the fuel analysis V. Incorporation by Reference
requirements to meet the more stringent VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas limit. These revisions will not result in
Designated as an Extension to a Class D or I. What is the background for this
an increase in SO2 emissions at the
Class E Surface Area. action?
facility.
* * * * * The Inver Hills facility is a 440
DATES: This rule is effective on March Megawatt peak demand electrical
AWP CA E4 Chico, CA [Removed] 28, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse generation plant. The plant has six
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas written comments by February 29, 2016. generation units, turbines EU 001–EU
Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA 006, which can burn both natural gas
Above the Surface of the Earth. will publish a timely withdrawal of the and distillate fuel oil. In 1980, Inver
* * * * * rule in the Federal Register and inform Hills was identified by the state of
the public that the rule will not take Minnesota as a culpable source in the
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
AWP CA E5 Chico, CA [Modified]
effect. Pine Bend portion of the Minneapolis-
Chico Municipal Airport, CA
(Lat. 39°47′43″ N., long. 121°51′30″ W.) ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, St. Paul SO2 nonattainment area in
Ranchaero Airport, Chico, CA identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– Dakota County. On July 28, 1992, MPCA
(Lat. 39°43′10″ N., long. 121°52′14″ W.) OAR–2015–0366 at http:// issued an administrative order for Inver
That airspace extending upward from 700 www.regulations.gov or via email to Hills to address the source’s
feet above the surface bounded by a line blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments contribution to the nonattainment
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM 28JAR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_4902/page/1.svg)
![4886 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
report containing this action and other such rule or action. Parties with Dated: January 13, 2016.
required information to the U.S. Senate, objections to this direct final rule are Susan Hedman,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and encouraged to file a comment in Regional Administrator, Region 5.
the Comptroller General of the United response to the parallel notice of
States prior to publication of the rule in proposed rulemaking for this action 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
the Federal Register. A major rule published in the proposed rules section
cannot take effect until 60 days after it of today’s Federal Register, rather than PART 52—APPROVAL AND
is published in the Federal Register. file an immediate petition for judicial PROMULGATION OF
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as review of this direct final rule, so that IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, and address the comment in the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
petitions for judicial review of this proposed rulemaking. This action may continues to read as follows:
action must be filed in the United States not be challenged later in proceedings to Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Court of Appeals for the appropriate enforce its requirements. (See section
circuit by March 28, 2016. Filing a 307(b)(2).) ■ 2. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph
petition for reconsideration by the (d) is amended by revising the entry for
Administrator of this final rule does not List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 ‘‘Xcel Energy-Inver Hills Generating
affect the finality of this action for the Environmental protection, Air Plant’’ to read as follows:
purposes of judicial review nor does it pollution control, Incorporation by
§ 52.1220 Identification of plan.
extend the time within which a petition reference, Intergovernmental relations,
for judicial review may be filed, and Reporting and recordkeeping * * * * *
shall not postpone the effectiveness of requirements, Sulfur dioxide. (d) * * *
EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS
State
Name of Source Permit No. effective EPA Approval date Comments
date
* * * * * * *
Xcel Energy-Inver Hills 03700015–004 07/16/14 01/28/16, [Insert Federal Only conditions cited as ‘‘Title I condition: SIP for
Generating Plant. Register citation]. SO2 NAAQS.’’
* * * * * * *
* * * * * facility near Carthage, Missouri. CCL is considered the official comment and
[FR Doc. 2016–01577 Filed 1–27–16; 8:45 am] a limestone quarry operation. The should include discussion of all points
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P consent judgment between the State of you wish to make. EPA will generally
Missouri and CCL includes measures not consider comments or comment
that will control PM10 emissions from contents located outside of the primary
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the facility. This approval will make the submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
AGENCY consent judgment Federally-enforceable. other file sharing system). For
DATES: This direct final rule will be
additional submission methods, the full
40 CFR Part 52 EPA public comment policy,
effective March 28, 2016, without
further notice, unless EPA receives information about CBI or multimedia
[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0644; FRL–9941–68–
Region 7] adverse comment by February 29, 2016. submissions, and general guidance on
If EPA receives adverse comment, we making effective comments, please visit
Approval of Missouri’s Air Quality http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
will publish a timely withdrawal of the
Implementation Plans; Americold commenting-epa-dockets.
direct final rule in the Federal Register
Logistics, LLC 24-Hour Particulate informing the public that the rule will FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matter (PM10) National Ambient Air not take effect. Heather Hamilton, Environmental
Quality Standard (NAAQS) Consent Protection Agency, Air Planning and
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Judgment
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
AGENCY: Environmental Protection OAR–2015–0644, to 913–551–7039 or by email at
Agency. www.regulations.gov. Follow the online hamilton.heather@epa.gov.
ACTION: Direct final rule. instructions for submitting comments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Once submitted, comments cannot be Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection edited or removed from Regulations.gov. or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final EPA may publish any comment received provides additional information by
action to approve a revision to the State to its public docket. Do not submit addressing the following:
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by electronically any information you
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
the State of Missouri on June 2, 2014. consider to be Confidential Business I. Background
This SIP revision incorporates a consent Information (CBI) or other information II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a
judgment to address violations of the whose disclosure is restricted by statute. SIP revision been met?
24-hour particulate matter (PM10) Multimedia submissions (audio, video, IV. What action is EPA taking?
NAAQS near the Americold Logistics, etc.) must be accompanied by a written V. Incorporation by Reference
LLC, Carthage Crushed Limestone (CCL) comment. The written comment is VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM 28JAR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_4902/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-02 12:40:59
Document Modified: 2018-02-02 12:40:59
| 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 | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Direct final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule is effective on March 28, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by February 29, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. | |
| Contact | Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 4884 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Sulfur Dioxide |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR