82 FR 32517 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Revisions to Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 134 (July 14, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 134 (July 14, 2017)
| Page Range | 32517-32519 | |
| FR Document | 2017-14732 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 32517-32519] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-14732] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0620; FRL-9964-83-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Revisions to Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on August 20, 2013, and on June 29, 2017. The submittals revise the portions of the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) that pertain to offset requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties for major sources. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Act). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0620 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 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 whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? a. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background On August 20, 2013, with supporting administrative documentation submitted on September 12, 2013, Utah sent the EPA revisions to their nonattainment permitting regulations, specifically to address EPA identified deficiencies in their nonattainment permitting regulations that affected the EPA's ability to approve Utah's PM10 maintenance plan and that may affect the EPA's ability to approve Utah's PM2.5 SIP. These revisions addressed R307-403-1 (Purpose and Definitions), R307-403-2 (Applicability), R307-403-11 (Actual Plant-wide Applicability Limits (PALs)), and R307-420 (Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties). On June 2, 2016, the EPA entered into a consent decree with the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, and Neighbors for Clean Air regarding a failure to act, pursuant to CAA sections 110(k)(2)-(4), on certain complete SIP submissions from states intended to address specific requirements related to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for certain nonattainment areas, including the submittal from the Governor of Utah dated August 20, 2013. On February 3, 2017, the EPA published a final rulemaking (82 FR 9138) to conditionally approve the revisions in Utah's August 20, 2013 submittal, except for the revisions to R307-420. The submittal did not contain the appropriate supporting documentation required for the EPA to take action on R307-420. As a result, the EPA requested an extension for taking action on R307-420, and on December 20, 2016, the EPA was [[Page 32518]] granted an extension which moved the deadline for taking final action on R307-420 from January 3, 2017, to September 29, 2017 (See docket). Utah submitted on June 29, 2017 an additional SIP revision that addresses the lack of appropriate supporting documentation for R307- 420. III. Proposed Action The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's revisions to R307-420 and R307-403-6, as submitted on August 20, 2013, and June 29, 2017. R307- 420 maintains the offset provisions of the nonattainment area new source review (NNSR) permitting program in Salt Lake and Davis Counties after the area is re-designated to attainment for ozone. R307-420 also establishes more stringent offset requirements for nitrogen oxides that may be triggered as a contingency measure under Utah's ozone maintenance plan. R307-420 was also modified to include the definitions and applicability provisions of R307-403 (Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas) to ensure that the definitions and applicability provisions in R307-420 are consistent with related permitting rules in R307-403. Finally, the revisions to R307-403-6 reflect the move of the maintenance offset provisions from R307-403 to R307-420. The EPA is proposing to approve these revisions after determining that these revisions are in compliance with federal statutes and regulations. The EPA first approved the offset provisions for maintenance of the ozone standards in Salt Lake and Davis Counties on May 5, 1995 (60 FR 22277), as part of an action on a Utah submittal updating the NNSR program. At that time, the offset provisions were in R307-1-3.3.3.C. R307-1-3.3.3.C applied an offset ratio of 1.15:1 for new major sources and major modifications in any ozone nonattainment area, but also in Salt Lake and Davis Counties after redesignation to attainment. See 60 FR 22280/3. The submittal, in R307-1-3.1.10, also applied alternative siting analysis requirements to apply to new major sources and major modifications in Salt Lake and Davis Counties after redesignation. On July 17, 1997 (62 FR 38213), the EPA approved Utah's maintenance plan and redesignation request for Salt Lake and Davis Counties. As part of that action, we approved a revision to R307-1-3.3.3.C that added a contingency measure for Salt Lake and Davis Counties. 62 FR 38215/2. The contingency measure, if triggered, would increase the offset ratio to 1.2:1. 62 FR 28406/1 (May 23, 1997) (proposal). Subsequently, Utah undertook a complete recodification of their air rules. The NNSR rules in R307-1-3, including the ozone maintenance provisions, were moved to R307-403. The offset and contingency measure provisions in R307-1-3.3.3.C were moved to R307-403-6, and the alternative siting analysis requirements were moved to R307-403-8. The EPA approved most of the recodification, including all of R307-403, on February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679). The alternative siting analysis requirements in R307-403-8 were subsequently moved to R307-401-19, approved by the EPA on February 6, 2014 (79 FR 7072), and then again to R307-403-10, approved by the EPA on February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9138) as part of the action discussed above. This portion of the SIP is up to date with all Utah rule revisions and submittals. Separately, in 1999 Utah moved the ozone maintenance plan provisions for Salt Lake and Davis Counties (i.e. the ozone offset maintenance provisions and contingency measure provisions) from R307- 403-6 to a new section of the UAC, R307-420. As part of this change, Utah added the relevant definitions from the NNSR program to the maintenance plan provisions. By separating the maintenance provisions from the NNSR program, this change improved the clarity of the maintenance provisions, particularly with regard to applicability in Salt Lake and Davis Counties. Correspondingly, Utah removed the maintenance plan language from R307-403-6. However, Utah did not submit these changes as a SIP revision. Then, on August 20, 2013, Utah submitted revisions to the definitions in the NNSR program that addressed certain deficiencies. Utah also submitted revisions to the corresponding definitions in R307- 420. As the EPA had not received the 1999 rulemaking that created R307- 420 as a SIP submittal, we were unable to take action on the revisions to R307-420. Utah's June 29, 2017 submittal addresses this issue by submitting the 1999 rule revisions that created R307-420 and modified R307-403-6. As these rule revisions preserve the ozone maintenance plan requirements for offsets and contingency measures in Salt Lake and Davis Counties while improving the clarity of those requirements, we propose to approve the revisions. We also propose to approve the subsequent revisions to R307-420, submitted on August 20, 2013, that Utah promulgated to ensure that the definitions and applicability provisions in R307-420 are consistent with related permitting rules in R307-403. For the reasons explained in our February 3, 2017 notice, the definitions and applicability provisions in R307-403 are consistent with requirements for NNSR programs found in 40 CFR 51.165. While R307-420 is part of the ozone maintenance plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties and not part of the NNSR program, and therefore not directly subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 51.165, we view the corresponding revisions to the definitions and applicability provisions as strengthening the maintenance plan. IV. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the UDAQ rules promulgated in the DAR, R307-400 Series as discussed in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 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.); [[Page 32519]] 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); 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 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). 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: June 30, 2017. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 2017-14732 Filed 7-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 134 / Friday, July 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 32517
applicable, for each recommendation. If the 0620 at https://www.regulations.gov. ii. Follow directions—The agency
data is not readily available, the Committee Follow the online instructions for may ask you to respond to specific
should include information as to how such submitting comments. Once submitted, questions or organize comments by
information can be obtained either by the comments cannot be edited or removed referencing a Code of Federal
Committee or directly by the Coast Guard.
from www.regulations.gov. The EPA Regulations (CFR) part or section
Public Participation may publish any comment received to number.
its public docket. Do not submit iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
All meetings associated with this
electronically any information you suggest alternatives and substitute
tasking, both full Committee meetings
consider to be Confidential Business language for your requested changes.
and subcommittee/working groups, are iv. Describe any assumptions and
Information (CBI) or other information
open to the public. A public oral provide any technical information and/
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
comment period will be held during the or data that you used.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
August 2, 2017, teleconference. Public v. If you estimate potential costs or
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comments or questions will be taken at burdens, explain how you arrived at
comment. The written comment is
the discretion of the Designated Federal your estimate in sufficient detail to
considered the official comment and
Officer; commenters are requested to should include discussion of all points allow for it to be reproduced.
limit their comments to 3 minutes. you wish to make. The EPA will vi. Provide specific examples to
Please contact the individual listed in generally not consider comments or illustrate your concerns, and suggest
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT comment contents located outside of the alternatives.
section, to register as a commenter. primary submission (i.e., on the web, vii. Explain your views as clearly as
Subcommittee meetings held in cloud, or other file sharing system). For possible, avoiding the use of profanity
association with this tasking will be additional submission methods, the full or personal threats.
announced as they are scheduled EPA public comment policy, viii. Make sure to submit your
through notices posted to http:// information about CBI or multimedia comments by the comment period
homeport.uscg.mil/CTAC and uploaded submissions, and general guidance on deadline identified.
as supporting documents in the making effective comments, please visit
electronic docket for this action, II. Background
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ On August 20, 2013, with supporting
[USCG–2017–0657], at Regulations.gov. commenting-epa-dockets. administrative documentation
J.G. Lantz, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: submitted on September 12, 2013, Utah
Director of Commercial Regulations and Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. sent the EPA revisions to their
Standards. Environmental Protection Agency nonattainment permitting regulations,
[FR Doc. 2017–14768 Filed 7–13–17; 8:45 am] (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 specifically to address EPA identified
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado deficiencies in their nonattainment
80202–1129, (303) 312–6227, permitting regulations that affected the
leone.kevin@epa.gov. EPA’s ability to approve Utah’s PM10
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: maintenance plan and that may affect
AGENCY I. General Information the EPA’s ability to approve Utah’s
PM2.5 SIP. These revisions addressed
40 CFR Part 52 What should I consider as I prepare my R307–403–1 (Purpose and Definitions),
comments for the EPA? R307–403–2 (Applicability), R307–403–
[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0620; FRL–9964–83–
Region 8] a. Submitting Confidential Business 11 (Actual Plant-wide Applicability
Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to Limits (PALs)), and R307–420 (Ozone
Approval and Promulgation of Air EPA through https:// Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt
Quality Implementation Plans; State of www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly Lake Counties). On June 2, 2016, the
Utah; Revisions to Ozone Offset mark the part or all of the information EPA entered into a consent decree with
Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake that you claim to be CBI. For CBI the Center for Biological Diversity,
Counties information in a disk or CD ROM that Center for Environmental Health, and
you mail to the EPA, mark the outside Neighbors for Clean Air regarding a
AGENCY: Environmental Protection failure to act, pursuant to CAA sections
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
Agency (EPA). 110(k)(2)–(4), on certain complete SIP
identify electronically within the disk or
ACTION: Proposed rule. CD ROM the specific information that is submissions from states intended to
claimed as CBI. In addition to one address specific requirements related to
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
complete version of the comment that the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for certain
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
includes information claimed as CBI, a nonattainment areas, including the
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
copy of the comment that does not submittal from the Governor of Utah
revisions submitted by the State of Utah
contain the information claimed as CBI dated August 20, 2013.
on August 20, 2013, and on June 29, On February 3, 2017, the EPA
2017. The submittals revise the portions must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked published a final rulemaking (82 FR
of the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) 9138) to conditionally approve the
that pertain to offset requirements in will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in revisions in Utah’s August 20, 2013
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Davis and Salt Lake Counties for major submittal, except for the revisions to
sources. This action is being taken 40 CFR part 2.
b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. R307–420. The submittal did not
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act contain the appropriate supporting
When submitting comments, remember
(CAA) (Act). documentation required for the EPA to
to:
DATES: Written comments must be i. Identify the rulemaking by docket take action on R307–420. As a result,
received on or before August 14, 2017. number and other identifying the EPA requested an extension for
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, information (subject heading, Federal taking action on R307–420, and on
identified by EPA–R08–OAR–2016– Register date and page number). December 20, 2016, the EPA was
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:18 Jul 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_32651/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 134 / Friday, July 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 32519
• does not contain any unfunded ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
mandate or significantly or uniquely AGENCY technical information regarding the
affect small governments, as described Samsung Austin Semiconductor
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 40 CFR Part 261 petition, contact Michelle Peace at 214–
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 665–7430 or by email at
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0254; FRL–9964–
peace.michelle@epa.gov.
• does not have federalism 71–Region 6]
Your requests for a hearing must
implications as specified in Executive reach EPA by July 31, 2017. The request
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of must contain the information described
1999); in § 260.20(d).
Hazardous Waste
• is not an economically significant SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Samsung
regulatory action based on health or AGENCY: Environmental Protection submitted a petition under 40 CFR
safety risks subject to Executive Order Agency (EPA). 260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); ACTION: Proposed rule. allows any person to petition the
• is not a significant regulatory action Administrator to modify or revoke any
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a provision of parts 260 through 266, 268
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR petition submitted by Samsung Austin
28355, May 22, 2001); and 273. Section 260.22(a) specifically
Semiconductor (Samsung) to exclude provides generators the opportunity to
• is not subject to requirements of (or delist) the sludge generated from the petition the Administrator to exclude a
Section 12(d) of the National electroplating process from the lists of waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis
Technology Transfer and Advancement hazardous wastes. EPA used the from the hazardous waste lists.
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Delisting Risk Assessment Software EPA bases its proposed decision to
application of those requirements would (DRAS) Version 3.0.47 in the evaluation grant the petition on an evaluation of
be inconsistent with the CAA; and of the impact of the petitioned waste on waste-specific information provided by
human health and the environment. the petitioner. This decision, if
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as DATES: We will accept comments until finalized, would conditionally exclude
appropriate, disproportionate human August 14, 2017. We will stamp the petitioned waste from the
health or environmental effects, using comments received after the close of the requirements of hazardous waste
comment period as late. These late regulations under the Resource
practicable and legally permissible
comments may or may not be Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
methods, under Executive Order 12898 If finalized, EPA would conclude that
considered in formulating a final
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Samsung’s petitioned waste is non-
decision. Your requests for a hearing
The SIP is not approved to apply on must reach EPA by July 31, 2017. The hazardous with respect to the original
any Indian reservation land or in any request must contain the information listing criteria. EPA would also
other area where the EPA or an Indian prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d) conclude that Samsung’s process
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has (hereinafter all CFR cites refer to 40 CFR minimizes short-term and long-term
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian unless otherwise stated). threats from the petitioned waste to
country, the proposed rule does not ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, human health and the environment.
have tribal implications and will not identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– Table of Contents
impose substantial direct costs on tribal RCRA–2017–0254, at http://
The information in this section is
governments or preempt tribal law as www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
organized as follows:
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 instructions for submitting comments.
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Once submitted, comments cannot be I. Overview Information
edited or removed from Regulations.gov. A. What action is EPA proposing?
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 The EPA may publish any comment B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this
delisting?
Environmental protection, Air received to its public docket. Do not C. How will Samsung manage the waste if
pollution control, Carbon monoxide, submit electronically any information it is delisted?
Intergovernmental relations, you consider to be Confidential D. When would the proposed delisting
Business Information (CBI) or other exclusion be finalized?
Incorporation by reference, Lead,
information whose disclosure is E. How would this action affect the states?
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate II. Background
restricted by statute. Multimedia
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be A. What is the history of the delisting
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile accompanied by a written comment. program?
organic compounds. The written comment is considered the B. What is a delisting petition, and what
does it require of a petitioner?
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. official comment and should include C. What factors must EPA consider in
Dated: June 30, 2017. discussion of all points you wish to deciding whether to grant a delisting
make. The EPA will generally not petition?
Debra H. Thomas,
consider comments or comment III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. contents located outside of the primary Information and Data
[FR Doc. 2017–14732 Filed 7–13–17; 8:45 am] submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or A. What wastes did Samsung petition EPA
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P other file sharing system). For to delist?
additional submission methods, the full B. Who is Samsung and what process does
EPA public comment policy, it use to generate the petitioned waste?
C. How did Samsung sample and analyze
information about CBI or multimedia the data in this petition?
submissions, and general guidance on D. What were the results of Samsung’s
making effective comments, please visit sample analysis?
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
commenting-epa-dockets. delisting this waste?
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:18 Jul 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_32651/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-24 11:16:49
Document Modified: 2018-10-24 11:16:49
| 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 on or before August 14, 2017. | |
| Contact | Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 32517 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Intergovernmental Relations; Incorporation by Reference; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR