83 FR 31332 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 129 (July 5, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 129 (July 5, 2018)
| Page Range | 31332-31334 | |
| FR Document | 2018-14387 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 31332-31334] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-14387] [[Page 31332]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015; FRL-9980-13--Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017, addressing regional haze. The revisions include source-specific revisions to the nitrogen oxides (NOX ) best available retrofit technology (BART) determination for Craig Station Unit 1 and to the NOX reasonable progress determination for the Nucla Station. Both Craig Station Unit 1 and Nucla Station are owned in part and operated by Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State). The EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: This rule is effective on August 6, 2018. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure 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 through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252, dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In our notice of proposed rulemaking published on April 26, 2018 (83 FR 18243), the EPA proposed to approve revisions to Colorado Code of Regulations, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, submitted by the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017. In this rulemaking, we are taking final action to approve Colorado's modification of the NOX BART determination for Craig Unit 1 and the NOX reasonable progress determination for Nucla. Specifically, the EPA is approving the revised Craig Unit 1 NOX BART determination, which requires Craig Unit 1 to meet an annual NOX emission limit of 4,065 tons per year (tpy) by December 31, 2019. The SIP revision also requires the unit to either (1) convert to natural gas by August 31, 2023, and if converting to natural gas, comply with a NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/ MMBtu (30-day rolling average) beginning August 31, 2021, or (2) shut down by December 31, 2025. The EPA is also approving the State's revised Nucla NOX reasonable progress determination, which requires the source to meet an annual NOX emission limit of 952 tpy by January 1, 2020, and shut down on or before December 31, 2022. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission adopted the revisions on December 15, 2016 (effective February 14, 2017). The reasons for our approval are provided in detail in the proposed rule. II. Response to Comments We received five comments during the public comment period. After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that four of the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response. The remaining comment, submitted by Tri-State, raised concerns with the proposed rule regarding the amortization period and remaining useful life of Craig Unit 1. Comment: First, Tri-State asserts that it is important that accurately representative periods of time be used in calculating the cost effectiveness of emission controls. Specifically, Tri-State asserts that amortization period calculations of eight years are incorrect. Instead, an amortization period of four years for SNCR and two years for SCR should be used, as these represent the periods of time following possible EPA approval of the Colorado SIP and complete installation of the respective technology until the closure date on or before December 31, 2025. The commenter also appreciates Colorado's acknowledgement of differing methodologies to calculate the amortization period and recognizes that a shorter amortization period would not alter Colorado's conclusion, and the EPA's concurrence, that neither SCR or SNCR is cost-effective. Response: We agree with Tri-State that it is important to accurately represent the amortization period used to calculate the cost effectiveness of emission control technologies. In past actions we have measured the amortization period as the time period from the projected compliance date to the date of retirement. In this case, there are multiple dates that could potentially be used, given the EPA's 2012 approval of Colorado's initial BART determination for Craig Unit 1, the revised BART determination associated with the 2014 settlement, and the updated analysis contained in the 2017 SIP submission. We agree with Colorado that it is appropriate to use a compliance date of August 31, 2021, as the start of the amortization period, as this is the date by which, as the State was conducting the BART analysis, SCR would have had to be installed and operational. Furthermore, August 31, 2021, is the date on which, under the natural gas conversion scenario, Craig Unit 1 must comply with an emission limit of 0.07 MMBtu, which mirrors the BART determination and compliance date in the 2014 settlement. We also agree with Colorado's decision to include a second scenario that conservatively estimates the amortization period based on the compliance dates associated with the State's original BART determinations. However, we disagree with the commenter that it is appropriate to reset the compliance dates based on the 2017 SIP submission, as this ignores the State's existing BART determinations and requirements that were in place at the time of the analysis. Finally, we appreciate the commenter's bringing to our attention Colorado's acknowledgement of Tri-State's alternative amortization period calculation, and we generally agree there may be differing methodologies for calculating the amortization period. However, and as Tri-State recognizes, a shorter amortization period would not alter Colorado's determination that neither SNCR or SCR is cost effective for Craig Unit 1. Comment: Second, Tri-State notes that the natural gas conversion scenario would not shorten the remaining useful life of Craig Unit 1. Specifically, Tri-State argues that determining BART while taking into consideration the remaining useful life of the source does not include incorporating the type of fuel a source uses. Thus, the EPA lacks a basis to determine that the natural gas conversion scenario would shorten the [[Page 31333]] ``remaining useful life of the existing coal-fired boiler.'' \1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 81 FR 18247 (April 26, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: We thank the commenter for bringing this distinction to our attention and agree with the commenter's perspective that converting Craig Unit 1 to natural gas does not in itself shorten the remaining useful life of the source. Our intent was to agree with Colorado's assertion that it is appropriate to reassess the NOX BART limit under the remaining period that Craig Unit 1 will be burning coal. III. Final Action For the reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is approving revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, shown in Table 1 submitted by the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017, addressing the NOX BART and reasonable progress requirements for Craig Unit 1 and Nucla, respectively. Table 1--List of Colorado Amendments That the EPA Is Approving ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amended sections in May 26, 2017 submittal ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regulation Number 3, Part F: VI.A.2 (table); VI.A.3; VI.A.4; VI.B.2 (table); VI.B.3; VI.B.4; VI.D; VI.E ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IV. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Colorado Code of Regulations described in the amendments set forth to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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, 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 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). This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 September 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: June 28, 2018. Debra Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 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. Subpart G--Colorado 0 2. Section 52.320 paragraph (c) is amended by revising table entry for VI. under the centered heading ``5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and Reasonable Progress (RP).'' The revision reads as follows: Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan. * * * * * [[Page 31334]] (c) * * * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State EPA effective Title effective date date Final rule citation/date Comments -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and Reasonable Progress (RP) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. Regional Haze Determinations.... 2/14/2017 8/6/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/5/ ........................................ 2018. * * * * * * * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * [FR Doc. 2018-14387 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![31332 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION revisions to Colorado Code of EPA’s concurrence, that neither SCR or
AGENCY Regulations, Regulation Number 3, Part SNCR is cost-effective.
F, Section VI, submitted by the State of Response: We agree with Tri-State
40 CFR Part 52 Colorado on May 26, 2017. In this that it is important to accurately
[EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0015; FRL–9980– rulemaking, we are taking final action to represent the amortization period used
13—Region 8] approve Colorado’s modification of the to calculate the cost effectiveness of
NOX BART determination for Craig Unit emission control technologies. In past
Approval and Promulgation of Air 1 and the NOX reasonable progress actions we have measured the
Quality Implementation Plans; determination for Nucla. Specifically, amortization period as the time period
Colorado; Regional Haze State the EPA is approving the revised Craig from the projected compliance date to
Implementation Plan Unit 1 NOX BART determination, which the date of retirement. In this case, there
requires Craig Unit 1 to meet an annual are multiple dates that could potentially
AGENCY: Environmental Protection NOX emission limit of 4,065 tons per be used, given the EPA’s 2012 approval
Agency (EPA). year (tpy) by December 31, 2019. The of Colorado’s initial BART
ACTION: Final rule. SIP revision also requires the unit to determination for Craig Unit 1, the
either (1) convert to natural gas by revised BART determination associated
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
August 31, 2023, and if converting to with the 2014 settlement, and the
Agency (EPA) is approving State
natural gas, comply with a NOX updated analysis contained in the 2017
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30- SIP submission. We agree with Colorado
submitted by the State of Colorado on
day rolling average) beginning August that it is appropriate to use a
May 26, 2017, addressing regional haze.
31, 2021, or (2) shut down by December compliance date of August 31, 2021, as
The revisions include source-specific
31, 2025. The EPA is also approving the the start of the amortization period, as
revisions to the nitrogen oxides (NOX)
State’s revised Nucla NOX reasonable this is the date by which, as the State
best available retrofit technology
progress determination, which requires was conducting the BART analysis, SCR
(BART) determination for Craig Station
the source to meet an annual NOX would have had to be installed and
Unit 1 and to the NOX reasonable
emission limit of 952 tpy by January 1, operational. Furthermore, August 31,
progress determination for the Nucla
2020, and shut down on or before 2021, is the date on which, under the
Station. Both Craig Station Unit 1 and
December 31, 2022. The Colorado Air natural gas conversion scenario, Craig
Nucla Station are owned in part and
Quality Control Commission adopted Unit 1 must comply with an emission
operated by Tri-State Generation &
the revisions on December 15, 2016 limit of 0.07 MMBtu, which mirrors the
Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-
(effective February 14, 2017). The BART determination and compliance
State). The EPA is taking this action
reasons for our approval are provided in date in the 2014 settlement. We also
pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
detail in the proposed rule. agree with Colorado’s decision to
Act (CAA).
include a second scenario that
DATES: This rule is effective on August II. Response to Comments
conservatively estimates the
6, 2018. We received five comments during amortization period based on the
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a the public comment period. After compliance dates associated with the
docket for this action under Docket ID reviewing the comments, the EPA has State’s original BART determinations.
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0015. All determined that four of the comments However, we disagree with the
documents in the docket are listed on are outside the scope of our proposed commenter that it is appropriate to reset
the http://www.regulations.gov website. action or fail to identify any material the compliance dates based on the 2017
Although listed in the index, some issue necessitating a response. The SIP submission, as this ignores the
information is not publicly available, remaining comment, submitted by Tri- State’s existing BART determinations
e.g., CBI or other information whose State, raised concerns with the proposed and requirements that were in place at
disclosure is restricted by statute. rule regarding the amortization period the time of the analysis. Finally, we
Certain other material, such as and remaining useful life of Craig Unit appreciate the commenter’s bringing to
copyrighted material, is not placed on 1. our attention Colorado’s
the internet and will be publicly Comment: First, Tri-State asserts that acknowledgement of Tri-State’s
available only in hard copy form. it is important that accurately alternative amortization period
Publicly available docket materials are representative periods of time be used calculation, and we generally agree
available through http:// in calculating the cost effectiveness of there may be differing methodologies for
www.regulations.gov, or please contact emission controls. Specifically, Tri-State calculating the amortization period.
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER asserts that amortization period However, and as Tri-State recognizes, a
INFORMATION CONTACT section for calculations of eight years are incorrect. shorter amortization period would not
additional availability information. Instead, an amortization period of four alter Colorado’s determination that
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: years for SNCR and two years for SCR neither SNCR or SCR is cost effective for
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. should be used, as these represent the Craig Unit 1.
Environmental Protection Agency periods of time following possible EPA Comment: Second, Tri-State notes
(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, approval of the Colorado SIP and that the natural gas conversion scenario
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado complete installation of the respective would not shorten the remaining useful
80202–1129, (303) 312–6252, technology until the closure date on or life of Craig Unit 1. Specifically, Tri-
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov. before December 31, 2025. The State argues that determining BART
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: commenter also appreciates Colorado’s while taking into consideration the
acknowledgement of differing remaining useful life of the source does
I. Background methodologies to calculate the not include incorporating the type of
In our notice of proposed rulemaking amortization period and recognizes that fuel a source uses. Thus, the EPA lacks
published on April 26, 2018 (83 FR a shorter amortization period would not a basis to determine that the natural gas
18243), the EPA proposed to approve alter Colorado’s conclusion, and the conversion scenario would shorten the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:52 Jul 03, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM 05JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31461/page/1.svg)
![31334 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
(c) * * *
State effective EPA effective
Title Final rule citation/date Comments
date date
* * * * * * *
5 CCR 1001–05, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Regional Haze Limits—Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and Reasonable
Progress (RP)
VI. Regional Haze Determinations ............................ 2/14/2017 8/6/2018 [Insert Federal Register
citation], 7/5/2018.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * is not placed on the internet and will be and finds that all the SIP elements that
[FR Doc. 2018–14387 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] publicly available only in hard copy apply to Eastern Kern as a Serious ozone
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
form. Publicly available docket nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
materials are available through http:// NAAQS have been addressed except for
www.regulations.gov, or please contact new source review (NSR) and
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the person identified in the FOR FURTHER reasonably available control technology
AGENCY INFORMATION CONTACT section for (RACT) for major sources of NOX.
additional availability information. Today, we are taking final action to
40 CFR Part 81 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: grant CARB’s reclassification request for
[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0223; FRL–9980– Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– the Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment
48—Region 9] 3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov. area and to establish a 12-month
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: deadline (from the effective date of this
Air Plan Approval; California; Eastern Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ final rule) for submittal of the two
Kern Air Pollution Control District; and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. remaining SIP elements for this area.
Reclassification Please see our May 14, 2018 proposed
Table of Contents
rule for further detail concerning these
AGENCY: Environmental Protection I. Proposed Action topics.
Agency (EPA). II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
ACTION: Final rule. III. EPA Action II. Public Comments and EPA
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Responses
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) I. Proposed Action The EPA’s proposed action provided
is granting a request by the State of a 30-day public comment period. During
On May 14, 2018 (83 FR 22235), the this period, we received four comments
California to reclassify the Eastern Kern EPA proposed to grant a request by the
County (‘‘Eastern Kern’’) nonattainment that were submitted anonymously. The
State of California to reclassify the commenters raised issues that are
area from ‘‘Moderate’’ to ‘‘Serious’’ for Eastern Kern nonattainment area from
the 2008 ozone national ambient air outside of the scope of this rulemaking,
Moderate to Serious for the 2008 ozone including foreign policy, wildfire
quality standards (NAAQS). In NAAQS. Our May 14, 2018 proposed
connection with the reclassification, the suppression, dams, wind turbines, air
rule provides: Background information quality in China and India, water
EPA is establishing a deadline of no
concerning the Clean Air Act (CAA); the quality in China, and climate change.
later than 12 months from the effective
EPA’s promulgation of the NAAQS; SIPs The comment letters are available in the
date of reclassification for submittal of
to implement, maintain, and enforce the docket for this rulemaking.
revisions to the Eastern Kern portion of
NAAQS within each state; ozone and its
the California State Implementation III. EPA Action
precursors (volatile organic compounds
Plan (SIP) to meet certain additional
(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX)); Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(3)
requirements for Serious ozone
the 2008 ozone NAAQS; area and 40 CFR 51.1103(b), the EPA is
nonattainment areas. The EPA has
designations, classifications and granting a request by the State of
already received SIP revision submittals
reclassifications for the 2008 ozone California to reclassify the Eastern Kern
addressing most of the additional SIP
NAAQS; and SIP revisions required to nonattainment area from Moderate to
requirements.
address CAA ozone nonattainment area Serious for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In
DATES: This rule is effective on August plan requirements based on connection with the reclassification, the
6, 2018. classification. EPA is establishing a deadline of no
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a Our proposed rule also describes the later than 12 months from the effective
docket for this action under Docket ID California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) date of reclassification for submittal of
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0223. All request for reclassification of the Eastern the two remaining SIP elements (i.e.,
documents in the docket are listed on Kern 2008 ozone nonattainment area NSR and RACT for major sources of
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
the http://www.regulations.gov website. from Moderate to Serious, our NOX) for Serious ozone nonattainment
Although listed in the index, some evaluation of the request, and the basis areas that have not already been
information is not publicly available, for our proposed approval of the submitted for the Eastern Kern ozone
e.g., Confidential Business Information request. Lastly, our proposed rule nonattainment area.1
or other information whose disclosure is describes the SIP revisions that CARB
restricted by statute. Certain other has already submitted to the EPA for the 1 Upon the effective date of reclassification, we
material, such as copyrighted material, Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment area note that certain regulatory changes would occur
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:52 Jul 03, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM 05JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31461/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-07-03 23:40:27
Document Modified: 2018-07-03 23:40:27
| 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 | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule is effective on August 6, 2018. | |
| Contact | Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 31332 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Greenhouse Gases; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR