[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 61 (Friday, March 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16031-16032]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06322]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0321; FRL-9960-46-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of an existing ICR, which
is currently approved through March 31, 2017. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on May 3, 2016 during a
60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for
public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may
neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently-valid
OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA HQ-
OECA-2013-0321, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Environmental Protection Agency has
submitted an information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for VOC
Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems (40 CFR part 60,
subpart QQQ) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1136.12, OMB Control No. 2060-
0172), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through March 31, 2017. Public comments were previously
requested via the Federal Register (81 FR 26546) on May 3, 2016 during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days
for public comments.
    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that
the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this
ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in
person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is
202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The NSPS for Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) Units at
Subpart LLLL fulfill the requirements of Sections 111 and 129 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), which require EPA to promulgate NSPS for solid
waste incineration units. The information collection activities
required by the NSPS include: Siting requirements, operator training
and qualification requirements, testing, monitoring and reporting
requirements, one-time and periodic reports, and the maintenance of
records. These activities will enable the Designated Administrator to
determine initial compliance with the emission limits for the regulated
pollutants, monitor compliance with operating parameters, and ensure
that facilities conduct the proper planning and operator training.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of sewage sludge
incineration units.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart LLLL)
    Estimated number of respondents: 5 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.
    Total estimated burden: 1,270 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $694,000 for both annualized capital/startup
and operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
total estimated burden from the most-recently approved ICR. The
increase primarily results from an increase in the number of sources,
as this ICR is updated to reflect the total number of SSI units subject
to Subpart LLLL based on EPA's 2016 SSI inventory. In addition, this
ICR makes several corrections to the number of reports and reporting
frequency to ensure consistency in calculating the respondent labor
hours, Agency labor hours, and the total number of responses.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-06322 Filed 3-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3579-3580]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01043]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign
Utility Company Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binghamton BOP LLC.....................  EG15-1-000
Lost Hills Solar, LLC..................  EG15-2-000
Blackwell Solar, LLC...................  EG15-3-000
Mesquite Creek Wind, LLC...............  EG15-4-000
Sky Global Power One, LLC..............  EG15-5-000
Heritage Stoney Corners Wind Farm I,     EG15-6-000
 LLC.
Western Antelope Blue Sky Ranch A, LLC.  EG15-7-000
Duke Energy Miami Fort, LLC............  EG15-8-000
Duke Energy Zimmer, LLC................  EG15-9-000
Spanish Town Estate Solar 1, LLC.......  EG15-10-000
Diageo USVI Inc........................  FC15-1-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of December 2014, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: January 15, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01043 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Burden Comment Response New Topic Summ. ID Summary Response DocumentID 11a 32 At Kirtland Air Force Base, and other federal facilities,

numerous construction projects occur throughout the year under the management and control of a single command entity.

For instance, an estimated 25 to 30 construction projects greater than one acre occur each year on Kirtland AFB. In addition to the preparation of the NOI is the requirement that each NOI be terminated through a Notice of Termination ( NOT); the burden on both parties becomes obvious. Coverage under general permits is the most efficient and least burdensome method of complying with NPDES regulations for both dischargers and regulators. Applying for general permit coverage is via NOIs ( see 40 CFR Section 122.28( b)( 2)). Upon fulfilling permit eligibility requirements, submittal of an NOI involves completing a one page form with information attesting to that eligibility. Likewise, submittal of an NOT is merely attesting via a one page form that permit coverage, and hence compliance burden, has ended following compliance with termination requirements. Application and termination form submittals are not onerous requirements. 1037 11a 33 To reduce paperwork and more efficiently use limited Tribal resources, would EPA accept a copy of the project EA and agency SWPP in lieu of the format proposed in 40 CFR 122.26, Small Construction Activities? As a general matter EPA anticipates that this level of documentation would not be sufficient. Potential discharges are, however, free to attempt to use a format somewhat different from the CGP in an individual permit application. 1026 11b 38 A small construction site, by its nature, should be afforded less stringent SWPPP requirements as compared to the SWPPPs developed for sites that disturb 5 acres or greater. For example,

generic SWPPPs should include various best management practices ( BMPs) applicable to a variety of sites where operators can implement the best practice for the site without having to provide site specific information for each location. Acre for acre the erosion potential and runoff from construction sites is no less for small construction sites. Because there are many more small construction sites than large construction sites, the cumulative impact of small sites is significant. The impacts of and rationale for inclusion of small construction sites are contained in the preamble to the Phase II Rule. EPA provides ample examples of storm water management controls that can be easily incorporated within a SWPPP. However, a generic, or one size fits all, SWPPP would not be effective for many construction activities. SWPPPs must be customized for soil types, slopes, season, climate, type of construction activity, and many other factors. 1028 11b 39 Little distinction is made between the permit requirements for large and small construction sites. The reduced impact of small construction sites should be accompanied by reduced burden on the permittee. However, the only difference in requirements between large and small sites is the availability of very limited waivers for small sites. See response to comment 38. The cumulative effects of many small sites on a receiving water is the overarching concern. EPA points out that SWPPP development and implementation at smaller sites are probably much less involved than for larger sites. 1038 11b 40 The proposed CGP does not recognize the difference in impact potential between large and small construction sites. The reduced impact of small construction sites should be accompanied by reduced burden on the permittee. However,

the only difference in requirements between large and small construction sites is the availability of very limited waivers for small sites. See response to comment 39. 1002 1 Burden Comment Response New Topic Summ. ID Summary Response DocumentID 11b 41   [ T] o reduce burden for small construction sites: Sites that begin and end construction ( i. e., temporary stabilization) within a 30 day period should be exempt from all requirements of the CGP. EPA disagrees. The commenter fails to take into account that any given time frame may actually be a very wet period, in which case the environmental damage could be great. 1006 11b 288   [ T] o reduce burden for small construction sites: Submittal of a NOI for small sites is burdensome and unnecessary and should be covered by Permit by Rule. EPA acknowledged that NOIs might not be appropriate for small sites in the Phase II rule ( 64 FR 68777, December 8, 1999). See response to comment 289. 1006 11b 289 API suggests the following to reduce the burden for some small construction sites: Submittal of NOIs for small sites or projects with a short construction period that have little environmental impact are burdensome and unnecessary, and should be covered by Permit by Rule. EPA acknowledged that NOIs might not be appropriate for these sites in the Phase II rule ( 64 FR 68777, December 8, 1999). EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that NOIs for small sites are burdensome and unnecessary. EPA's estimate for completing and submitting the NOI form is 1.5 hours. Additionally, EPA believes the submission of NOIs provides the permitting authority with a useful tool to oversee and track construction activity. See also responses to comments 41 and 39. 1002 11b 387 [ T] o reduce burden for small construction sites: Inspection of BMP should be at a decreased frequency for small sites ( i. e.,

every two weeks during active construction activities and every two months after temporary stabilization). EPA does not believe that inspections of BMPs are a more significant burden to smaller sites than larger sites. Site inspection burden is, in fact, based on the size and complexity of the site to be inspected. 1002 11c 1 My company is a small independent oil and gas well developer which drills seven to eight shallow ( 3,500' deep) gas wells in western Pennsylvania per year. We have two full time employees. My company is not in a position to deal with the extra costs and burdens associated with additional stormwater permitting associated with drilling my wells. Many small companies have NPDES permit coverage. The State of Pennsylvania issues it's own NPDES permits. See also response to comment 304. 1013 11c 2 Obtaining individual permits is a lengthy and potentially costly process that could unduly delay construction or add on costs disproportionate to the benefits received from an individual permit. EPA believes a vast majority of projects should and will be covered by the general permit not individual permits. Individual permits are generally used only when general permits are deemed unable to provide the level of environmental protection necessary to protect specific receiving waters. 1039 11c 3 If the oil and gas industry was subject to NPDES permitting process:  The cost of drilling oil and natural gas wells would increase markedly. See response to comment 304 1043 2 Burden Comment Response New Topic Summ. ID Summary Response DocumentID 11c 4 It ... Best Management Practices demanded by Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements ... has introduced undesirable costs ... into a time sensitive process and to date, has yielded no positive economic ... result for our industry. Pennsylvania's erosion and sediment requirements are independent of the NPDES Storm Water Permitting Program. Pennsylvania is authorized to implement the NPDES program. As such, the state is free to adopt the EPA baseline regarding scope of storm water regulations or it may choose a more stringent implementation if it believes it is warranted. 1012 11c 5 The change in size of earth disturbance required for a full NPDES permit can greatly impact the industry in an adverse manor in additional time frames and cost issues. The time it takes to work through the NPDES permit application and the required approvals will make the drilling of new wells more expensive than it needs be. See response to comment 304. EPA points out that the goal of NPDES is to protect and enhance water quality which yields many economic and health benefits. 1021 11c 6 There are several changes in the proposed CGP, which are unclear and/ or greatly increase the scope beyond the existing CGP   63 Federal Register 7857 7956 ( February 1998).

Some of these changes are impractical to implement or add significant expenses that were not considered in the EPA cost estimate for the C& D ELG. Increased clarity is one of the goals of the public comment process. The C & D effluent limitation guideline is a separate rulemaking effort. See response to comment 304. 1058 11c 12 The reality is that this permit will serve as a model for other state general permits. This phenomena, I'll call it ' permit creep'

will significantly increase the cost of development and ultimately the cost of housing. EPA has the responsibility to develop NPDES permits based on the statutory requirements of the CWA. States authorized by EPA to administer the NPDES program are free to interpret NPDES requirements as they see fit, using EPA requirements as a baseline. 1068 11c 13 An oil and gas construction project   is typically on a very tight schedule and

moves very quickly from planning to construction because both the access to mineral rights and the availability of drilling rigs are on schedules. Failure to meet the schedule often results in the loss of opportunity to drill which could lead to forfeiting hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in the project. See Response to Comment 304. 1015 11c 14 I urge EPA to resist imposition of additional unnecessary regulation on oil and gas activities that would have the potential to delay, hinder, or choke the continuing development of oil and gas reserves in Texas and throughout the nation. See Response to Comment 304. 1009 11c 15 I strongly encourage EPA to balance the cost of any additional requirements with the potentially adverse impacts on the ability of this nation to satisfy its need for development and recovery of domestic oil and gas reserves, which I believe was the intent of Congress in enacting the oil and gas construction exemption. See Response to Comment 304. 1009 3 Burden Comment Response New Topic Summ. ID Summary Response DocumentID 11c 16 Permitting delays would deter and delay the development of domestic oil and natural gas resources. See Response to Comment 304. 1043 11c 17 The economic impacts of the limitations, if any, placed on the scope of section 402( l)( 2) arise from the potential for delay associated with the requirement to obtain permit coverage under the CGP. The potential for delay has the potential to cause operators to lose their leases, suffer drainage, and be unable to produce the oil and gas reserve, ultimately reducing the quantity of recoverable reserves in the U. S. In the year 2000, a total of 31,732 exploratory and production wells were drilled   over 10,000 in Texas and Oklahoma alone. To meet future natural gas demand, the National Petroleum Council estimates that the number of natural gas wells alone needs to increase to approximately 48,000 wells annually. The ultimate effect of EPA's narrow interpretation of section 402( l)( 2) could,

therefore, be enormous. A recent industry analysis estimates that requiring these sites to submit a NPDES permit application could reduce investment in domestic exploration and production by as much as $ 8 billion annually. [ See Independent Petroleum Association of America ( IPAA), Update on Stormwater Construc ( Sept. 6, 2002)]. See Response to Comment 304. 1061 11c 20 The industry as a whole has a good record of following the current regulation and has done nothing to warrant additional burden of the changes. What I have told to you can be checked with PA IOGA, with POGAM, and with PA DEP. The changes to the scope of the CGP are largely the result of the Storm Water Phase II Rule. The State of Pennsylvania has it's own NPDES program.

However, see response to comment 304. 1021 11c 21 In conclusion, if finalized as proposed the draft construction general permit will hinder the ability of operators of construction sites to get coverage and force more operators into individual permit status, result in inappropriate reliance on structural Best Management Practices, which are costly, take up large amounts of land, and are counter to innovative site design methods, and greatly increase the cost of development and ultimately, the cost of housing. See response to comment 19  Most NPDES storm water permits do not include mandatory use of specific structural BMPs. In the CGP, for instance, it occurs only in very limited circumstances 10 acres and above in land disturbance.

See also response to comment 20. 2001 4 Burden Comment Response New Topic Summ. ID Summary Response DocumentID 11c 22 Nation wide there could be 20,000 30,000 permits required per year for gas distribution projects that disturb between one and five acres. AGA encourages EPA to consider a subcategory for the linear utility industry that would prevent increased burdens on regulatory agencies and that recognizes the unique temporal and spatial characteristics of linear utility projects. This should include projects for distribution, transmission and gathering lines for natural gas and electric utilities. EPA includes some special requirements for linear projects, but also points out the impacts on water quality from construction generally occur irrespective of the geometry of the land disturbance. 1045 11c 36 It ... Best Management Practices demanded by Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements ... has introduced undesirable ... delays into a time sensitive process and to date, has yielded no positive economic ... result for our industry. See response to comment 4. 1012 11c 37 Many requirements in the proposed CGP, such as completion and submittal of the NOI and NOT, reviews of endangered species and historic sites preservation, will cause significant delay in an oil and gas project. The project schedule may allow time for a cursory review of endangered species habitats and historic sites preservation to ensure compliance with the respective Federal laws; however, the delay resulting from the detailed review and documentation as prescribed in the proposed CGP and its addenda will jeopardize the success of the project. See Response to Comment 304. 1015 11c 115 I am also concerned with the practicality of contractors obtaining the information required in a timely manner for the proposed GPSWD, including issues regarding the proportionate share of the applicable TMDL's, knowing what and where impaired waterbodies are, collecting the necessary ESA information, and determining the NHPA eligibility. These are dramatic changes from the current Permit, and I doubt that many that routinely disturb less than 5 acres land/ jobsite are aware of these additional impending requirements or the time required to wait for this information from the appropriate or applicable federal and state agencies. EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns and has redefined the term " operator" to indicate that this is, in most instances, likely the developer or land owner. EPA provides more detailed explanation of this change in the fact sheet.

EPA believes this change will allow more time upfront to evaluate TMDLs and ESA provisions and ensure that appropriate measures are identified by the time contractors commence activity on the site. 1078 5 Burden Comment Response New Topic Summ. ID Summary Response DocumentID 11c 189 The Notice of Intent ( NOI) submission deadlines under the draft permit will cause unnecessary expense and delay to ongoing construction projects. See Draft CGP Section 2.2. The CGP requires that NOIs be submitted prior to commencement of construction activities ( i. e., the initial disturbance of soils associated with clearing, grading, excavation activities, or other construction activities), allowing enough time for review of the project with respect to the Endangered Species Act. EPA considers the 7 day period between receipt of the NOI and authorization to discharge to be extremely minimal, given that construction site planning generally begins months prior to construction commencement. EPA also notes that many states have much longer waiting periods, and construction activities in those states do not appear to have suffered as a result. 1079 11c 382.1 SWP3 Updates, Implementation and Certification Costs.

Several specific changes have been put into the proposed CGP that detail more precisely what shall be contained in the SWP3. These involve several additional activities that must be addressed and implemented over and above the existing CGP, and several of these items involve additional time and expense. The EPA did not include many of these specific expenses in the cost models for either the C& D ELG proposal or the Phase II rule. The changes to the SWP3 include the following: Identifying on the site map the areas where intermediate phases of construction have begun or the final stabilization has been completed and no further post construction is required. The SWP3 must also be regularly updated. The sequencing and timing of the construction activity. EPA addresses the specific items in the order you have noted them.

Including information on construction phasing and stabilization in your SWPPP allows you to suspend or greatly reduce BMP inspections and maintenance activities for the areas that have been temporarily or final stabilized. EPA believes that identifying areas of construction phasing provides minimal additional burden on the permittee, while suspending or reducing BMP inspections and maintenance provides considerable relief for the permittee. The new requirement burden is more than offset by the burden reduction benefits. Updating the SWPPP as site conditions change or construction activities are modified has always been a requirement of the CGP. Therefore there is no additional burden. Similar to phasing, if the operator has described the sequencing and timing of various construction related activities, he/ she may be able to identify areas that can be temporarily or final stabilized thus reducing the regulatory burden. 1058 6 Burden Comment Response New Topic Summ. ID Summary Response DocumentID 11c 382.2 The additional cost associated with this requirement includes additional planning and phasing of construction sites before preparing NOI and SWP3 plans; potential installation of more BMP control measures due to smaller areas being under construction instead of the whole site being graded, etc.; and additional labor time preparing inspection reports. Sequencing was encouraged in the existing CGP but not mandated as in the proposed CGP.

The EPA did not include additional costs for construction sequencing or phasing in the C& D ELG proposal. Any postconstruction storm water measures that are required by federal, local, state, or tribal requirements must be included in SWP3. The SWP3 must describe measures to minimize,

to the extent practicable, off site vehicle tracking of sediment and the generation of dust. This will likely result in manned truck wash stations at many medium to large size construction sites. These costs were not estimated by EPA in the C& D ELG proposal. Since most construction operators have already developed this information for purposes of scheduling subcontractors, utility installation, etc. EPA does not believe this places additional burden on the operator. EPA believes that phasing activities requires the installation and maintenance of fewer BMPs, not more, because stabilized areas are most effective at preventing erosion. Inspection and reporting requirements certainly do not increase; if they change at all they decrease because stabilized areas do not need to be inspected. The CGP does not require truck washing. The CGP notes that, as relevant, construction site operators should implement measures to minimize the amount of dirt tracked off site. This has been a standard construction site BMP for a long time; as such EPA does not consider this to be a new requirement. 1058 11d 116 The CGP should be simplified to allow the average construction worker to understand its goals, methods and requirements.

One method of doing this would be to remove requirements of the CGP that involve compliance with federal rules other than the stormwater requirements. These rules could be referenced as eligibility requirements but do not need to be rewritten in the CGP and/ or included in the NOI. Examples include: ( 1) TMDL references and guidance ( 2) ESA review ( NOI, 3.7, Addendum A) ( 3) Historic Preservation ( NOI, 3.8, Addendum B) ( 4)

Postconstruction stormwater management ( 3.4. E) ( 5) Pollutant sources other than construction ( 3.4. I) ( 6) Non stormwater discharge management ( 3.5) EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns. The Agency has reorganized this permit significantly from the 1998 CGP in an attempt to make the permit easier to understand. EPA's NPDES regulations require permit compliance with TMDLs, and other statutes like the ESA. See 40 CFR 122.49( c). Certain pollutant sources other than construction and non storm water discharge management are included in the CGP as a way to consolidate permit requirements. Otherwise, all construction sites that had non construction related discharges would be required to attain coverage under a second nonstorm water discharge permit.

EPA acknowledges the commenter's concern regarding post construction storm water management and believes that this requirement is a critical component in storm water control. 1002 7


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26258]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10690]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0650; FRL-9809-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Consent Decree Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing
the March 15, 2013, direct final rule approving a revision to the
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA will address the comment
in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action,
also published on March 15, 2013. EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 78 FR 16412 on March 15,
2013, is withdrawn as of May 6, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Portanova, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is withdrawing the March 15, 2013 (78 FR
16412), direct final rule approving a revision to Indiana's
construction permit rule for sources subject to the state operating
permit program regulations at 40 CFR Part 70. In the direct final rule,
EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by April 15, 2013,
the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. On March 18, 2013, EPA
received a comment, which it interprets as adverse and, therefore, EPA
is withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA will address the comment in a
subsequent final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also
published on March 15, 2013 (78 FR 16449). EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: April 22, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.770 published in the Federal
Register on March 15, 2013 (78 FR 16412) on page 16414 is withdrawn as
of May 6, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2013-10690 Filed 5-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P