43202 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

to previous notices (80 FR 69161; 81 FR 

22039; 81 FR 54768; 82 FR 5473) you 

must submit a new nomination package. 

Previous applications will not be 

considered. The BIE will not consider 

nominations for Federal representatives. 

Only the Secretary may nominate 

Federal employees to the Committee. 

Nominations must include the 

following information about each 

nominee: 

(1) A current letter from the entity 

representing one of the interest(s) 

identified supporting the nomination of 

the individual to serve as a 

representative for the Committee; 

(2) A resume reflecting the nominee’s 

qualifications and experience in Indian 

education; resume to include the 

nominee’s name, Tribal affiliation (if 

applicable), job title, major job duties, 

employer, business address, business 

telephone and fax numbers (and 

business email address, if applicable); 

(3) The interest(s) to be represented by 

the nominee (see section V, part F) and 

whether the nominee will represent 

other interest(s) related to this 

rulemaking; and 

(4) A brief description of how the 

nominee will represent the views of the 

identified interest(s), communicate with 

constituents, and have a clear means to 

reach agreement on behalf of the 

interest(s) they are representing. 

(5) A statement on whether the 

nominee is only representing one 

interest or whether the expectation is 

that the nominee represents a specific 

group of interests. 

To be considered, nominations must 

be received by the close of business on 

the date listed in the DATES section, at 

the location indicated in the ADDRESSES

section. 

Public Availability of Comments: 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

VII. Certification 

For the above reasons, I hereby certify 

that the Bureau of Indian Education 

Standards, Assessments, and 

Accountability System Negotiated 

Rulemaking Committee is in the public 

interest. 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6301; 5 U.S.C. 561; 5 

U.S.C. Appendix 2. 

Dated: September 1, 2017. 

Michael S. Black, 

Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19111 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4337–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0130; FRL–9967–68– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to California State 

Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District; Emission 

Reduction Credit Banking 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on a 

revision to the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District (BAAQMD or 

District) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). We are 

proposing a conditional approval of one 

rule. This revision consists of updates to 

provisions governing the issuance and 

banking of Emission Reduction Credits 

for use in the review and permitting of 

major sources and major modifications 

under part D of title I of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 16, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2017–0130 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

R9AirPermits@epa.gov. 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region 9, (415) 

972–3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. What is the existing BAAQMD rule 

governing banking of Emission 

Reduction Credits in the California SIP? 

C. What is the purpose of this proposed 

rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

On April 22, 2013, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) submitted an 

amended rule, BAAQMD Regulation 2, 

Rule 4 (Rule 2–4), for approval as a 

revision to the BAAQMD portion of the 

California SIP under the CAA. 

Regulation 2 contains the District’s air 

quality permitting programs. Rule 2–4 

contains requirements applicable to the 

banking of Emission Reduction Credits 

(ERCs) for use in the District’s air 

quality permitting programs. 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by BAAQMD and submitted to 

the EPA by CARB, which is the 

governor’s designee for California SIP 

submittals. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 43203 

1 51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986. 2 81 FR 50339, August 1, 2016. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Regulation & rule number Rule title Adopted/ 

amended Submitted 

Regulation 2, Rule 4 (Rule 2–4) ...... Permits, Emissions Banking ...................................................................... 12/19/12 4/22/13 

On June 26, 2013, Regulation 2, Rule 

4 was deemed to meet the completeness 

criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, 

which must be met before formal EPA 

review. The submittal includes evidence 

of public notice and adoption of the 

amended rule. While we can only take 

action on the most recently submitted 

version of each regulation (which 

supersedes earlier submitted versions), 

we have reviewed materials provided 

with previous submittals. 

B. What is the existing BAAQMD rule 

governing banking of Emission 

Reduction Credits in the California SIP? 

The existing SIP-approved banking 

rule in the Bay Area consists of the rule 

identified in Table 2. This rule includes 

requirements for the generation and use 

of ERCs in nonattainment areas. 

Consistent with the District’s stated 

intent to have the submitted banking 

rule replace the existing SIP-approved 

banking rule in its entirety, EPA’s 

conditional approval of the regulation 

identified in Table 1 would have the 

effect of entirely superseding our prior 

approval of the same rule in the current 

SIP-approved program. 

TABLE 2—EXISTING SIP RULE

Regulation & rule No. Rule title BAAQMD 

adoption date 

EPA approval 

date FR citation 

2–4 .......................................... Permits, Emissions Banking ................................................... 6/15/1994 1/26/1999 64 FR 3850. 

C. What is the purpose of this proposed 

rule? 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to present our evaluation under the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations of the 

amended banking rule submitted by 

CARB on April 22, 2013, as identified 

in Table 1. We provide our reasoning in 

general terms later in this preamble and 

provide a more detailed analysis in our 

Technical Support Document (TSD), 

which is available in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

In general, banking rules allow a 

permitting authority to evaluate whether 

certain emission reductions meet the 

offset integrity criteria found in 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i) and CAA section 

173(c)(1) at the time of ERC issuance, 

and, if found to meet these criteria, to 

certify that finding by issuing an ERC 

Certificate. This process provides the 

Certificate-holder with a greater degree 

of certainty as to the validity of their 

ERCs for future use as offsets. Since the 

intent of a banking program is to prereview an emission reduction to 

determine whether it will meet the 

offset integrity criteria, we considered 

these criteria in our evaluation. In 

addition, we used EPA’s Emissions 

Trading Policy Statement (ETPS),1

which provides guidance on emissions 

trading, including the banking of ERCs 

for future use. EPA also evaluated the 

rules for compliance with the CAA 

requirements for SIP revisions in CAA 

sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l), and the 

additional requirements laid out in 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(3). 

Our TSD, which can be found in the 

docket for this rule, contains a more 

detailed evaluation and discussion of 

the approval criteria. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

With respect to procedural 

requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) 

and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP 

be adopted by the State after reasonable 

notice and public hearing. Based on our 

review of the public process 

documentation included in the April 22, 

2013 submittal, we find that the 

BAAQMD has provided sufficient 

evidence of public notice, and an 

opportunity for comment and a public 

hearing prior to adoption and submittal 

of these rules to EPA. 

With respect to substantive 

requirements, we have evaluated Rule 

2–4 to ensure it does not conflict with 

the requirements applicable to offsets in 

accordance with the CAA and 

regulatory requirements that apply to 

nonattainment NSR permit programs 

under part D of title I of the Act. For the 

most part, the submitted banking rule 

satisfies the applicable requirements 

and will strengthen the SIP by updating 

the rule and adding requirements to 

address fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 

However, the submitted banking rule 

also contains three deficiencies that 

prevent full approval. Further in this 

preamble, we discuss generally our 

evaluation of BAAQMD’s submitted rule 

and describe the identified deficiencies. 

Our TSD contains a more detailed 

evaluation and recommendations for 

program improvements. 

First, Rule 2–4 is deficient because, 

while it defines the term ERCs as 

emission reductions ‘‘that are in excess 

of the reductions required by applicable 

regulatory requirements, and that are 

real, permanent, quantifiable, and 

enforceable,’’ it does not contain any 

enforceable provisions requiring the Air 

Pollution Control Officer to determine 

that the emission reductions under 

review meet the offset integrity criteria 

prior to issuing an ERC Certificate. 

Second, Rule 2–4 is deficient because 

it incorporates the emission reduction 

calculation procedures found in Rule 2– 

2 subsection 605.2. On August 1, 2016, 

EPA finalized a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of BAAQMD’s Rule 

2–2—New Source Review 2 because it 

contained deficiencies regarding the 

calculation of emission reductions. 

Specifically, EPA disapproved Rule 2–2 

subsection 605.2 because it allows 

existing ‘‘fully-offset’’ sources to 

generate ERCs based on the difference 

between the post-modification potential 

to emit (PTE) and the pre-modification 

PTE. This may result in crediting 

emission reductions that are not 

‘‘actual’’ reductions, as required by the 

Act. See 42 U.S.C. 7503(c)(1). 

Third, Rule 2–4 is deficient because 

Section 2–4–302.3 allows ERC 

Certificates to be issued that do not 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
43204 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

adequately ensure the permanency of an 

emission reduction due to a facility 

closure. 

With respect to the substantive 

requirements of CAA section 110(l), we 

have determined that our approval of 

Rule 2–4, as described in more detail in 

our TSD, represents a strengthening of 

the rule as compared to the District’s 

current SIP-approved banking rule that 

we approved on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 

3850), and that our conditional approval 

of the current SIP submittal would not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

Reasonable Further Progress or any 

other applicable requirement of the Act. 

III. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

Because the rule deficiencies 

described previously are inappropriate 

for inclusion in the SIP, EPA cannot 

grant full approval of this rule under 

section 110(k)(3) of the Act. However, in 

a letter dated August 28, 2017, the 

District committed to adopt and submit 

specific enforceable measures to address 

these deficiencies. The District 

committed to submit these revisions to 

CARB by October 1, 2018. In addition, 

in a letter dated August 29, 2017, CARB 

committed to submit the adopted rule 

revisions to EPA no later than 

November 1, 2018. Accordingly, 

pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the Act, 

EPA is proposing a conditional approval 

of the submitted rule. We are proposing 

to conditionally approve the submitted 

rule based on our determination that 

separate from the deficiencies listed 

previously, the rule: Ensures that issued 

ERCs will meet the criteria laid out in 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i) at the 

time of ERC issuance; satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i); 

satisfies the applicable requirements 

found in the ETPS; and satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(ii), which requires 

pre-base year shutdown credits to be 

explicitly added back in to the most 

recent applicable air quality plans. 

Moreover, we conclude that if the 

District submits the changes it has 

committed to submit, these deficiencies 

will be cured. 

In support of this proposed action, we 

have concluded that our conditional 

approval of the submitted rule would 

comply with section 110(l) of the Act 

because the amended rule, as a whole, 

would not interfere with continued 

attainment of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards in the Bay Area. The 

intended effect of our proposed 

conditional approval action is to update 

the applicable SIP with current 

BAAQMD rules and provide BAAQMD 

the opportunity to correct the identified 

deficiencies, as discussed in their 

commitment letter dated August 28, 

2017. If we finalize this action as 

proposed, our action would be codified 

through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220 

(Identification of plan) and 40 CFR 

52.232 (Part D conditional approval). 

If the State meets its commitment to 

submit the required measures by 

November 1, 2018, the revisions to Rule 

2–4 will remain a part of the SIP until 

EPA takes final action approving or 

disapproving the new SIP revisions. 

However, if the District fails to submit 

these revisions within the required 

timeframe, the conditional approval will 

automatically become a disapproval, 

and EPA will issue a finding of 

disapproval. EPA is not required to 

propose the finding of disapproval. 

There are no sanctions or Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) implications 

should the conditional approval become 

a disapproval. Sanctions would not be 

imposed under CAA section 179(b) 

because the submittal of Rule 2–4 is 

discretionary (i.e., not required to be 

included in the SIP). See ETPS, 51 FR 

43,813 at 43,825 (‘‘[S]tates are by no 

means required to adopt banking 

procedures, but . . . banks may help 

states and communities realize 

important planning and environmental 

benefits.’’). A FIP would not be imposed 

under CAA section 110(c)(1) because 

the disapproval does not reveal a 

deficiency in the SIP that such a FIP 

must correct. Specifically: (1) The 

deficiencies identified herein do not 

impact or undermine the requirement 

that offsets satisfy the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.165, including the 

requirement that offsets must satisfy the 

offset integrity criteria enumerated in 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i) at the time 

of use; and (2) Rule 2–4 is not a required 

CAA submittal because states and air 

districts have the discretion, but are not 

required, to adopt banking rules. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed conditional 

approval of Rule 2–4 for the next 30 

days. 

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 

BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 4 (Permits, 

Emissions Banking), which is discussed 

in section I.A. of this preamble. The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, this document generally available 

electronically through https://

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the appropriate EPA office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because 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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 43205 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 31, 2017. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19451 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0469; FRL–9967–67– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of 

Administrative Rules, R307–300 

Series; Area Source Rule for 

Attainment of Fine Particulate Matter 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of the fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

and related rule revisions submitted by 

the State of Utah. The EPA is proposing 

to approve revisions submitted on May 

9, 2013 and August 25, 2017 for Utah’s 

fugitive dust control rule, and to 

approve the State’s associated 

reasonable available control measures 

(RACM) determination, submitted on 

December 16, 2014. This action is being 

taken under section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 16, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2017–0469 at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from https://

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to the 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information, 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 

video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 

written comment. The written comment 

is considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6602, 

ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

a. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to the 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 

A. Regulatory Background 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

the EPA strengthened the level of the 

24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), lowering 

the primary and secondary standards 

from 65 micrograms per cubic meter 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS