23492 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Background 

In volume 77 of the Federal Register, 

page 21162, April 9, 2012, (77 FR 

21162) the United States Department of 

Agriculture (Department) published a 

final rule setting forth directions for 

developing, amending, revising, and 

monitoring land management plans (the 

planning rule). 

The National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA) at 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(D) 

requires planning regulations to specify 

guidelines for land management plans 

which ‘‘permit increases in harvest 

levels based on intensified management 

practices, such as reforestation, 

thinning, and tree improvement’’ under 

certain conditions. This provision 

requires that the planning regulations 

must permit such increases in harvest 

levels if ‘‘(i) such practices justify 

increasing the harvests in accordance 

with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield 

Act of 1960,’’ and ‘‘(ii) if such harvest 

levels are decreased at the end of each 

planning period if such practices cannot 

be successfully implemented or funds 

are not received to permit such practices 

to continue substantially as planned.’’ 

Id. Because the planning rule did not 

explicitly include this mandated 

requirement, the Department is making 

a technical amendment at 36 CFR 

219.11(d)(6), to explicitly include this 

requirement for intensified management 

practices. Accordingly, section 

219.11(d)(6) now contains, in an 

introductory paragraph and paragraphs 

(i) and (iii), the regulatory text that 

appeared in the planning rule upon its 

issuance in April, and paragraph (ii), 

which contains new text tracking the 

text of 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(D) of the 

NFMA. This clarification does not have 

any substantive legal effect but it simply 

makes clear that the planning rule 

complies with the NFMA’s requirement 

that such rule allow for intensified 

management practices as set forth in 16 

U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(D). 

The Department has also concluded 

that additional documentation under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

is not necessary to make the decision to 

make this rule amendment. There is no 

need to consider the effects of an 

explicit intensified-managementpractices provision among alternatives, 

because such a provision would be 

included in every alternative. See 16 

U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(D). Therefore, there is 

no need to supplement the National 

Forest System Land Management 

Planning Rule Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement of 

January 2012. 

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 219 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Environmental impact 

statements, Indians, Intergovernmental 

relations, National forests, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Science and technology. 

Accordingly 36 CFR part 219 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendment: 

PART 219—PLANNING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 219 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 1604, 

1613. 

■ 2. In § 219.11 revise paragraph (d)(6) 

to read as follows: 

§ 219.11 Timber requirements based on 

the NFMA. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(6) The quantity of timber that may be 

sold from the national forest is limited 

to an amount equal to or less than that 

which can be removed from such forest 

annually in perpetuity on a sustained 

yield basis. This limit may be measured 

on a decadal basis. 

(i) The plan may provide for 

departures from this limit as provided 

by the NFMA when departure would be 

consistent with the plan’s desired 

conditions and objectives. Exceptions 

for departure from this limit on the 

quantity sold may be made only after a 

public review and comment period of at 

least 90 days. 

(ii) This limit may be based upon 

increases in harvest levels based on 

intensified management practices, such 

as reforestation, thinning, and tree 

improvement if such practices justify 

increasing the harvests in accordance 

with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield 

Act of 1960. The plan must require that 

such harvest levels be decreased at the 

end of each planning period if such 

practices cannot be successfully 

implemented or funds are not received 

to permit such practices to continue 

substantially as planned. 

(iii) The Chief must include in the 

Forest Service Directive System 

procedures for estimating the quantity 

of timber that can be removed annually 

in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis, 

and exceptions, consistent with 16 

U.S.C. 1611. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 13, 2013. 

Thomas L. Tidwell, 

Chief. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08839 Filed 4–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0083; FRL–9804–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Particulate Matter Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request 

submitted by the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) on 

January 30, 2013, to revise the Indiana 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

particulate matter under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). This submission contains 

the 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated by EPA in 2006, 

and removes the annual coarse particle 

(PM10) NAAQS that EPA has previously 

revoked. The submission also asks EPA 

to approve into the SIP certain Federally 

regulated criteria pollutant definitions 

and abbreviations. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective June 18, 2013, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by May 20, 

2013. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0083 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2013– 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 23493 

1Note that on January 15, 2013, the revised 

primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS was published in the 

Federal Register (see 78 FR 3086). The State’s 

submissions, as well as today’s rulemaking, do not 

extend to this NAAQS. 

0083. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. 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, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Andy 

Chang, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–0258 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258, 

chang.andy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

A. When and why did the State make this 

submission? 

B. Did the State hold public hearings for 

this submission? 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of IDEM’s 

submission? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. When and why did the State make 

this submittal? 

On January 30, 2013, IDEM submitted 

as SIP revisions regulatory provisions 

addressing the NAAQS for nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

PM10 and PM2.5. EPA will be taking 

separate action on NO2 and SO2 in a 

future rulemaking. In this notice, EPA is 

addressing the submission with regard 

to the current primary and secondary 

24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5,1 which were 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 17, 2006 (see 71 FR 61144) and 

codified at 40 CFR 50.13, ‘‘National 

primary and secondary ambient air 

quality standards for PM2.5.’’ In the 

submission, IDEM has also requested 

that EPA remove from the SIP the 

annual PM10 NAAQS that EPA revoked 

on July 1, 2006. At the State level, these 

provisions regarding PM2.5 and PM10

became effective on January 18, 2013. 

IDEM’s revisions ensure consistency 

between the State and Federal 

definitions of the PM2.5 and PM10

NAAQS, as well as in the determination 

of attainment of those NAAQS. 

The January 30, 2013, submission also 

includes a list of the Federally regulated 

criteria pollutant definitions and 

abbreviations to be used in a rule that 

delineates attainment status 

designations for each county in Indiana. 

These definitions became effective at 

the State level on January 18, 2013, and 

are intended to serve as a key or 

glossary for the remainder of the rule. In 

this rulemaking notice, EPA will be 

taking action on the definitions and 

abbreviations related to PM2.5 and PM10. 

B. Did the State hold public hearings for 

this submission? 

A public hearing for these revisions 

was held on November 7, 2012. No 

comments were received at this hearing. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of IDEM’s 

submission? 

On October 17, 2006, revisions to the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were published 

in the Federal Register (see 71 FR 

61144). The primary (health-based) 

PM2.5 NAAQS was strengthened to 35 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

measured as a 24-hour average 

concentration. The secondary (welfarebased) PM2.5 NAAQS was revised to be 

identical to the primary PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA codified these revisions at 40 CFR 

50.13. 

Under 40 CFR 50.13(a), ambient 24- 

hour average PM2.5 concentrations are to 

be measured by either: (1) A reference 

method based on appendix L to 40 CFR 

part 50 (‘‘Reference Method for the 

Determination of Fine Particulate Matter 

as PM2.5 in the Atmosphere’’) and 

designated in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 53 (‘‘Ambient Air Monitoring 

Reference and Equivalent Methods’’); or 

(2) an equivalent method designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 53. In 

addition, under 40 CFR 50.13(c), 

determinations as to whether the 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards have been met are 

to be made in accordance with the data 

handling conventions and computations 

in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N 

(‘‘Interpretation of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for PM2.5’’). 

In IDEM’s January 30, 2013, 

submission, the State requested that 

EPA approve 326 Indiana 

Administrative Code (IAC) 1–3–4 (b)(8), 

as revised to reflect EPA’s revised 

primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. IDEM’s requested revisions are 

substantively identical to the provisions 

contained in 40 CFR 50.13. Specifically, 

the definition of the NAAQS, the 

calculations for determining attainment 

of the NAAQS, and the mechanism to 

measure ambient concentrations of 

PM2.5 are consistent with 40 CFR 50.13. 

IDEM’s rule contains the primary and 

secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 

mg/m3, which are achieved when 98th 

percentile 24-hour average 

concentration is equal to, or less than, 

35 mg/m3, as determined in accordance 

with appendix N to 40 CFR part 50. 

Indiana has incorporated appendix N by 

reference into the SIP. 

Indiana’s submission also 

incorporates by reference appendix L to 

40 CFR part 50, which contains the data 

handling conventions and computations 

for determining whether the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS have been met. It should 

be noted, however, that a determination 

of what constitutes a ‘‘Federal 

Equivalent Method’’ under 40 CFR 

50.13(a)(2) can only be made by the 

Administrator of EPA. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
23494 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

On July 1, 2006, EPA revoked the 

annual PM10 NAAQS (see 71 FR 61144). 

Indiana has requested that EPA remove 

the portions of 326 IAC 1–3–4(b)(7) that 

contain or make reference to the former 

annual PM10 NAAQS. 

Aligning State and Federal ambient 

air quality standards, calculations for 

compliance, and ambient concentration 

collection methods ensure consistency 

between EPA’s and IDEM’s PM2.5 and 

PM10 NAAQS. Because the State has 

adopted regulations that are wholly 

consistent with the Federal NAAQS, 

EPA concludes that IDEM’s requested 

revision concerning the incorporation of 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 

approvable. EPA also concludes that 

IDEM’s requested removal of the annual 

PM10 NAAQS is approvable. 

Indiana also requests in its 

submission that EPA approve a list of 

Federally regulated criteria pollutant 

definitions and abbreviations into the 

SIP, specifically at 326 IAC 1–4–1. 

These terms include ‘‘SO2’’, ‘‘CO’’ 

(carbon monoxide), ‘‘O3’’ (ozone), 

‘‘NO2’’, and ‘‘Pb’’ (lead). Indiana has 

requested that ‘‘PM10’’ have the meaning 

set forth in 326 IAC 1–2–52.4 and that 

‘‘PM2.5’’ has the meaning set forth in 326 

IAC 1–2–52.2. EPA has previously 

approved both 326 IAC 1–2–52.2 and 

326 IAC 1–2–52.4 into the SIP, and 

IDEM is not seeking to revise those 

definitions. Because this list of terms 

and abbreviations are wholly consistent 

at the State and Federal levels, and are 

meant as a clarification for future SIP 

submissions related to 326 IAC 1–4–1, 

EPA concludes that this requested 

revision is approvable. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving portions of a 

submission from IDEM that contains the 

Federally promulgated 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS codified at 40 CFR 50.13 and 

removes a portion of Indiana’s SIP as it 

relates to the annual PM10 NAAQS, as 

EPA revoked this particular NAAQS in 

2006. Finally, EPA is approving 

portions of the January 30, 2013, 

submission from Indiana that add a list 

of criteria pollutant definitions and 

acronyms to Indiana’s rules that relate 

to concerning attainment status 

designations. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the Proposed Rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective June 18, 2013 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by May 20, 

2013. If we receive such comments, we 

will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period; 

therefore, any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

June 18, 2013. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive 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.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 18, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 23495 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: April 4, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘1–3–4’’ and adding a new entry in 

numerical order for ‘‘1–4–1’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana 

citation Subject 

Indiana 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Notes 

*******

Rule 3. Ambient Air Quality Standards 

*******

1–3–4 .................... Ambient air quality standards ........................................ 1/18/2013 4/19/2013, [INSERT PAGE

NUMBER WHERE THE 

DOCUMENT BEGINS].

(b)(7) and (b)(8) only. 

*******

Rule 4. Attainment Status Designations 

1–4–1 .................... Definitions ....................................................................... 1/18/2013 4/19/2013, [INSERT PAGE 

NUMBER WHERE THE 

DOCUMENT BEGINS].

*******

[FR Doc. 2013–09149 Filed 4–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0073; FRL–9790–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Small Container Exemption from VOC 

Coating Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to 

the Illinois State Implementation plan 

(SIP) submitted by the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(Illinois EPA) on November 14, 2011. 

This SIP revision consists of 

amendments to the Illinois 

Administrative Code (Ill. Adm. Code) by 

adding a ‘‘small container exemption’’ 

for pleasure craft surface coating 

operations in the Chicago and MetroEast St. Louis 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. These exemptions 

are approvable because they are 

consistent with EPA volatile organic 

compound (VOC) reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) policy. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 20, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0073. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (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 either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Steven 

Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–6052 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6052. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What public comments were received on 

the proposed approval and what is EPA’s 

response? 

II. What action is EPA taking today? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What public comments were received 

on the proposed approval and what is 

EPA’s response? 

A comment was submitted on April 

16, 2012, by a Kentucky resident. As a 

result of this comment, the direct final 

approval published on April 16, 2012, 

(77 FR 22497) was withdrawn. His 

comment is that EPA should determine, 

pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

110(l), what impact this exemption will 

have on St. Louis and Chicago attaining 

the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) as soon as 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES