83 FR 14389 - Approval of California Plan Revisions, Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 65 (April 4, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 65 (April 4, 2018)
| Page Range | 14389-14391 | |
| FR Document | 2018-06878 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 14389-14391] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-06878] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0171; FRL-9976-43-Region 9] Approval of California Plan Revisions, Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Northern Sonoma [[Page 14390]] County Air Pollution Control District (NSCAPCD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the District's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program for new and modified sources of air pollution. We are proposing action on these local rules under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 4, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09- OAR-2018-0171 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to T. Khoi Nguyen, at [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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, 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T. Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4120, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates that they were adopted by the NSCAPCD and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the governor's designee for California SIP submittals. Table 1--Submitted Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local agency Rule # Rule title Amended Submitted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NSCAPCD............................... 130 Definitions............. 5/3/2017 6/12/17 NSCAPCD............................... 220 New Source Review....... 5/3/2017 6/12/17 NSCAPCD............................... 230 Action on Applications.. 5/3/2017 6/12/17 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On December 12, 2017, the submittal for the NSCAPCD was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V that must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of these rules? On October 6, 2016, the EPA finalized approval of Rule 230 and limited approval and limited disapproval of Rules 130 and 220. 81 FR 69390. Though Rule 230 was inadvertently fully approved with a deficiency, the revised Rule 230 in this SIP submittal addresses the deficiency. Our proposed approval of the rules in this action would update the SIP to be consistent with the local rules. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules? Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that include a pre-construction permit program for certain new or modified stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program as required by Part C of Title I of the CAA. On October 6, 2016, the EPA listed four items that need addressing for the three rules with limited approval to become fully approved-- listing lead as a pollutant and indicating a significant emission rate, requiring provisions for air quality modeling based on applicable models, databases, and other requirements as specified in Part 51 Appendix W, correcting a typographic error, and including specific language regarding source obligations. The revisions to the three submitted rules address these four deficiencies. Rules 130, 220, and 230 contain the requirements for review and permitting of individual stationary sources in NSCAPCD. These rules satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for the New Source Review (NSR) program, including the PSD program. The changes the District made to the rules listed above as they pertain to the PSD program were largely administrative in nature and provide additional clarity to the rules. We present our evaluation under the CAA and the EPA's regulations of the revised NSR rules submitted by CARB, as identified in Table 1, and provide our reasoning in general terms below and a more detailed analysis in our TSD, which is available in the docket for the proposed rulemaking. II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? The EPA has reviewed the rules submitted by the NSCAPCD governing PSD for stationary sources for compliance with the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), the EPA's regulations for stationary source permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, sections 51.160 through 51.164 and 51.166, and the CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l). The EPA is proposing full approval of Rules 130 (Definitions), 220 (New Source Review) and 230 (Action on Applications). B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? The EPA has reviewed the submitted rules in accordance with the rule evaluation criteria described above. With respect to procedures, based on our review of the public process documentation included in the June 12, 2017 submittal, we are proposing to approve the submitted rules in part because we have determined that the NSCAPCD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public [[Page 14391]] hearings prior to adoption and submittal of this rule, in accordance with the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l). We are also approving Rules 130, 220, and 230 because we have determined these rules satisfy all of the statutory and regulatory requirements for an NSR permit program (including the PSD program) as set forth in the applicable provisions of part C of title I of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307. The revisions to these rules also resolve the limited disapproval issues from the October 2016 action. Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a more detailed discussion of the approval criteria. C. Public Comment and Proposed Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until May 4, 2018. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the NSCAPCD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 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 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); Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866. 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 Clean Air Act; 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 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 4, 2018. 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. 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, New Source Review, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: March 26, 2018. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2018-06878 Filed 4-3-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 14389
legislation also provides, subject to with federal law, which is one of the safety risks subject to Executive Order
certain conditions, for a penalty waiver criteria for immunity.’’ 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
for violations of environmental laws Therefore, EPA has determined that • is not a significant regulatory action
when a regulated entity discovers such Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
violations pursuant to a voluntary statutes will not preclude the 28355, May 22, 2001);
compliance evaluation and voluntarily Commonwealth from enforcing its NSR • is not subject to requirements of
discloses such violations to the program consistent with the federal Section 12(d) of the National
Commonwealth and takes prompt and requirements. In any event, because Technology Transfer and Advancement
appropriate measures to remedy the EPA has also determined that a state Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
violations. Virginia’s Voluntary audit privilege and immunity law can application of those requirements would
Environmental Assessment Privilege affect only state enforcement and cannot be inconsistent with the CAA; and
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides have any impact on federal enforcement • does not provide EPA with the
a privilege that protects from disclosure authorities, EPA may at any time invoke discretionary authority to address, as
documents and information about the its authority under the CAA, including, appropriate, disproportionate human
content of those documents that are the for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 health or environmental effects, using
product of a voluntary environmental or 213, to enforce the requirements or practicable and legally permissible
assessment. The Privilege Law does not prohibitions of the state plan, methods, under Executive Order 12898
extend to documents or information independently of any state enforcement (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
that: (1) Are generated or developed effort. In addition, citizen enforcement The proposed rule approving
before the commencement of a under section 304 of the CAA is Virginia’s 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
voluntary environmental assessment; (2) likewise unaffected by this, or any, state Certification SIP revision for NNSR is
are prepared independently of the audit privilege or immunity law. not approved to apply on any Indian
assessment process; (3) demonstrate a reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C.
clear, imminent and substantial danger V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews 1151 or in any other area where EPA or
to the public health or environment; or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
(4) are required by law. Under the CAA, the Administrator is tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
On January 12, 1998, the required to approve a SIP submission Indian country, the rule does not have
Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the that complies with the provisions of the tribal implications and will not impose
Attorney General provided a legal CAA and applicable federal regulations. substantial direct costs on tribal
opinion that states that the Privilege 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). governments or preempt tribal law as
law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
granting a privilege to documents and EPA’s role is to approve state choices, FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
information ‘‘required by law,’’ provided that they meet the criteria of
including documents and information the CAA. Accordingly, this action List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
‘‘required by federal law to maintain merely approves state law as meeting Environmental protection, Air
program delegation, authorization or federal requirements and does not pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce impose additional requirements beyond Incorporation by reference,
federally authorized environmental those imposed by state law. For that Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
programs in a manner that is no less reason, this proposed action: dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
stringent than their federal • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion action’’ subject to review by the Office organic compounds.
concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, of Management and Budget under
therefore, documents or other Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
information needed for civil or criminal October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Dated: March 27, 2018.
enforcement under one of these January 21, 2011); Cecil Rodrigues,
programs could not be privileged • is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 Deputy Regional Administrator, Region III.
because such documents and FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory [FR Doc. 2018–06880 Filed 4–3–18; 8:45 am]
information are essential to pursuing action because SIP approvals are BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
enforcement in a manner required by exempted under Executive Order 12866;
federal law to maintain program • does not impose an information
delegation, authorization or approval.’’ collection burden under the provisions ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 AGENCY
Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
extent consistent with requirements • is certified as not having a 40 CFR Part 52
imposed by federal law,’’ any person significant economic impact on a
making a voluntary disclosure of [EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0171; FRL–9976–43–
substantial number of small entities
Region 9]
information to a state agency regarding under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
a violation of an environmental statute, U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Approval of California Plan Revisions,
regulation, permit, or administrative • does not contain any unfunded Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
order is granted immunity from mandate or significantly or uniquely Control District; Stationary Source
administrative or civil penalty. The affect small governments, as described Permits
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
opinion states that the quoted language of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); AGENCY: Environmental Protection
renders this statute inapplicable to • does not have federalism Agency (EPA).
enforcement of any federally authorized implications as specified in Executive ACTION: Proposed rule.
programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
afforded from administrative, civil, or 1999); SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
criminal penalties because granting • is not an economically significant Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
such immunity would not be consistent regulatory action based on health or revisions to the Northern Sonoma
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Apr 03, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM 04APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_14454/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 14391
hearings prior to adoption and submittal Management and Budget under required information to the U.S. Senate,
of this rule, in accordance with the Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2) October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, the Comptroller General of the United
and 110(l). January 21, 2011); States prior to publication of the rule in
We are also approving Rules 130, 220, • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 the Federal Register. A major rule
and 230 because we have determined FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory cannot take effect until 60 days after it
these rules satisfy all of the statutory action because SIP approvals are is published in the Federal Register.
and regulatory requirements for an NSR exempted under Executive Order 12866. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
permit program (including the PSD • Does not impose an information defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
program) as set forth in the applicable collection burden under the provisions Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
provisions of part C of title I of the Act of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
and in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); this action must be filed in the United
51.307. The revisions to these rules also • Is certified as not having a States Court of Appeals for the
resolve the limited disapproval issues significant economic impact on a appropriate circuit by June 4, 2018.
from the October 2016 action. substantial number of small entities Filing a petition for reconsideration by
Our TSD, which can be found in the under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 the Administrator of this final rule does
docket for this rule, contains a more U.S.C. 601 et seq.); not affect the finality of this action for
detailed discussion of the approval • Does not contain any unfunded the purposes of judicial review nor does
criteria. mandate or significantly or uniquely it extend the time within which a
affect small governments, as described petition for judicial review may be filed,
C. Public Comment and Proposed in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Action and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); of such rule or action. This action may
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of • Does not have Federalism not be challenged later in proceedings to
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully implications as specified in Executive enforce its requirements. (See section
approve the submitted rules because Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 307(b)(2).)
they fulfill all relevant requirements. 1999);
We will accept comments from the • Is not an economically significant List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
public on this proposal until May 4, regulatory action based on health or Environmental protection, Air
2018. If we take final action to approve safety risks subject to Executive Order pollution control, Incorporation by
the submitted rules, our final action will 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); reference, Intergovernmental relations,
incorporate these rules into the federally • Is not a significant regulatory action New Source Review, Particulate matter,
enforceable SIP. subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Reporting and recordkeeping
28355, May 22, 2001); requirements.
III. Incorporation by Reference • Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory Technology Transfer and Advancement Dated: March 26, 2018.
text that includes incorporation by Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Deborah Jordan,
reference. In accordance with application of those requirements would Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; [FR Doc. 2018–06878 Filed 4–3–18; 8:45 am]
proposing to incorporate by reference and BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
the NSCAPCD rules described in Table • Does not provide EPA with the
1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, discretionary authority to address, as
and will continue to make, these appropriate, disproportionate human
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
materials available through health or environmental effects, using
HUMAN SERVICES
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA practicable and legally permissible
Region IX Office (please contact the methods, under Executive Order 12898 42 CFR Part 100
person identified in the FOR FURTHER (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this In addition, the SIP is not approved RIN 0906–AB14
preamble for more information). to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an National Vaccine Injury Compensation
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Indian tribe has demonstrated that a Program: Adding the Category of
Reviews tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Vaccines Recommended for Pregnant
Under the Clean Air Act, the Indian country, the rule does not have Women to the Vaccine Injury Table
Administrator is required to approve a tribal implications and will not impose AGENCY: Health Resources and Services
SIP submission that complies with the substantial direct costs on tribal Administration (HRSA), HHS.
provisions of the Act and applicable governments or preempt tribal law as ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 (NPRM).
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
submissions, the EPA’s role is to The Congressional Review Act, 5 SUMMARY: As required by a recent
approve state choices, provided that U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small amendment to the VICP’s authorizing
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Business Regulatory Enforcement statute, the Secretary of the Department
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Act. Accordingly, this action merely Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides of Health and Human Services
approves state law as meeting Federal that before a rule may take effect, the (Secretary) proposes to amend the
requirements and does not impose agency promulgating the rule must National Vaccine Injury Compensation
additional requirements beyond those submit a rule report, which includes a Program (VICP) Vaccine Injury Table
imposed by state law. For that reason, copy of the rule, to each House of the (Table) to include vaccines
this action: Congress and to the Comptroller General recommended by the Centers for Disease
• Is not a significant regulatory action of the United States. EPA will submit a Control and Prevention (CDC) for
subject to review by the Office of report containing this action and other routine administration in pregnant
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Apr 03, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM 04APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_14454/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-01 09:11:44
Document Modified: 2018-11-01 09:11:44
| 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 | Any comments must arrive by May 4, 2018. | |
| Contact | T. Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4120, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 14389 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; New Source Review; Particulate Matter and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR