Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might wish to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but this takes time to do accurately and thoroughly. I know that the FDA took several years to develop the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with science and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am looking forward to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34608-34611]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14479]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0131, FRL-9317-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of California; Interstate Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the California Regional Haze Plan (``CRHP''),
a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (``SIP'')
addressing Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``Act'') requirements and EPA's
rules for states to prevent and remedy future and existing
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
through a regional haze program. Regional haze is caused by emissions
of air pollutants from many sources located over a wide geographic
area. Also, EPA is approving certain portions of the CRHP and the
``Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-hour Ozone
and PM2.5 to satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State of California'' (``2007 Transport
SIP''), submitted by California on November 16, 2007, as meeting the
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference
with other states' measures to protect visibility for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA proposed to approve these SIP
revisions on March 15, 2011 (76 FR 13944).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on July 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0131 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available at either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office, Air-2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; via telephone at (415) 947-
4111; or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our,'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. The CAA Requirements and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
    C. Interstate Transport Pollution and Visibility Requirements
    D. Our Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by many sources and
activities located across a broad geographic area that emit fine
particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide

(SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and in some
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)).
Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine
particulate matter that impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing
light, thereby reducing the clarity, color, and visible distance that
one can see. Also, PM2.5 can cause serious health effects
and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental impacts, such
as acid deposition and eutrophication of water bodies.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs nearly all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e.,
national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international
parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States is
100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range
that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.\1\ In most of the
eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is
less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that
would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1,
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The CAA Requirements and EPA's Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress
created a program to protect visibility in the nation's national parks
and wilderness areas.\2\ This section of the CAA establishes as a
national goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas
which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2,
1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in
Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or
small group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (RAVI) (45 FR 80084). These regulations represented the
first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA and after consulting with
the Department of Interior, EPA promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and Tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress added section 169B to
address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address
regional haze on July 1, 1999, the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR
35713). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to
integrate provisions addressing regional haze impairment and to
establish a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-309. The requirement to submit a regional haze plan revision
to the SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the
Virgin Islands.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a more detailed discussion of the CAA and RHR requirements,
please see sections II and III of our March 15, 2011 proposal (76 FR
13944). Our evaluation of the California Regional Haze Plan can be
found in Section IV of the same proposal.

C. Interstate Transport Pollution and Visibility Requirements

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and
for PM2.5 (62 FR 38856; 62 FR 38652). Section 110(a)(1)
requires each state to submit a plan to address certain requirements
for a new or revised NAAQS within three years after promulgation of
such standards, or within such shorter time as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new plan submissions
must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which
pertains to the interstate transport of certain emissions.
    The ``good neighbor'' provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the
CAA require each state to have a SIP that prohibits emissions that
adversely affect other states in the ways contemplated in the statute.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related to
the impacts of interstate transport. The SIP must contain adequate
provisions prohibiting sources in the state from emitting air
pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state; (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state; (3) interfere with
provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in any
other state; or, (4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in
any other state.
    The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for
visibility and encourages states to work together to develop plans to
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each state to address
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable
progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. Working together through
a regional planning process, states are required to address an agreed
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class
I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these
requirements, we anticipate that regional haze SIPs will contain
measures that will achieve these emissions reductions, and that these
measures will meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    California's 2007 Transport SIP states that the Regional Haze SIP
would address interstate regional haze impacts. We interpreted this to
mean that California intended for the Regional Haze Plan to address the
interstate visibility requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, our
evaluation of the 2007 Transport SIP and whether it meets these CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility requirements relied on our
evaluation of relevant information from the CRHP.
    For a more detailed discussion of the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and our evaluation of how the 2007 Transport SIP and
relevant portions of the CRHP meet these requirements, please see
sections II.D and V of our March 15, 2011 proposal (76 FR 13944).

D. Our Proposed Action

    On March 15, 2011, EPA proposed to approve: (i) The California
Regional

Haze Plan (CRHP) as meeting the relevant requirements of CAA section
169B and the Regional Haze Rule; and (ii) the 2007 Transport SIP and
certain portions of the CRHP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with other states' measures
to protect visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 13944).
    Regarding our proposed approval of the CRHP, we proposed to find
that California met the following Regional Haze Rule requirements: The
State established baseline visibility conditions and reasonable
progress goals for each of its Class I areas; the State developed a
long-term strategy with enforceable measures ensuring reasonable
progress towards meeting the reasonable progress goals for the first
ten-year planning period, through 2018; the State adequately addressed
the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology to specific
stationary sources; the State has an adequate regional haze monitoring
strategy; the State provided for consultation and coordination with
Federal land managers in producing its regional haze plan; and, the
State provided for the regional haze plan's future revisions.
    Regarding our proposed approval of California's 2007 Transport SIP,
we proposed to find that the following specific elements of the CRHP
satisfied the CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to prohibit
emissions that will interfere with measures to protect visibility in
another state for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS: Chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018
Progress Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation).
    For the portion of today's final action related to the 2007
Transport SIP, we are taking final action only with regard to the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement that the SIP must contain
adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity in California from emitting pollutants that will interfere
with another state's measures to protect visibility. EPA intends to act
in separate rulemakings on other portions of California's 2007
Transport SIP that address the remaining elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The other elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require
that the California SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting
emission sources within the State from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts which will: (a) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State;
(b) interfere with maintenance of these standards by any other
State; and, (c) interfere with any other State's measures required
under Part C of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality. On March 17, 2011, we proposed to approve California's 2007
Transport SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(I)
requirements that the California SIP contain adequate provisions to
ensure that emissions from California do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of, or interfere with maintenance of,
the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 standards in other
states (76 FR 14616).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve the CRHP and the 2007 Transport SIP because
we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements.
Our proposed action provides more information about the relevant CAA
requirements, EPA guidance, the state's submittals, and our review and
evaluation of these SIP revisions.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. We
received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully approving the
California Regional Haze Plan as satisfying all of the relevant
requirements of Section 169B and the Regional Haze Rule. Specifically,
we find that California has met the following Regional Haze Rule
requirements: The State established baseline visibility conditions and
reasonable progress goals for each of its Class I areas; the State
developed a long-term strategy with enforceable measures ensuring
reasonable progress towards meeting the reasonable progress goals for
the first ten-year planning period, through 2018; the State has
adequately addressed the application of Best Available Retrofit
Technology to specific stationary sources; the State has an adequate
regional haze monitoring strategy; the State provided for consultation
and coordination with Federal land managers in producing its regional
haze plan; and, the State provided for the regional haze plan's future
revisions.
    In addition, under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, we are fully
approving the 2007 Transport SIP and the following specific elements of
the CRHP as satisfying the CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement
to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures to protect
visibility in another state for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS: Chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4
(California 2018 Progress Strategy), and, chapter 8 (Consultation).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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 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 August 15, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(386) and (c)(387)
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (386) The following plan was submitted on November 16, 2007, by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved].
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
    (1) CARB Resolution 07-28, dated September 27, 2007, adopting the
``2007 State Implementation Plan for the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (``2007 State
Strategy'').
    (2) ``Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
1997 8-hour Ozone Standard and PM2.5 to satisfy the
Requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State of
California (September 21, 2007),'' as modified by Attachment A and
submitted as Appendix C to the 2007 State Strategy (``2007 Transport
SIP''), at page 5 (``Evaluation of Interference with Other States'
Measures Required to Meet Regional Haze and Visibility SIP
Requirements'').
    (387) The following plan was submitted on March 16, 2009, by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved].
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
    (1) CARB Resolution 09-4, dated January 22, 2009, adopting the
``California Regional Haze Plan''.
    (2) The ``California Regional Haze Plan'', adopted on January 22,
2009, as amended and supplemented on September 8, 2009 in a ``letter
from James N. Goldstene, CARB to Laura Yoshii, United States
Environmental Protection Agency'', and as amended and supplemented on
June 9, 2010 in a ``letter from James N. Goldstene, CARB to Jared
Blumenfeld, United States Environmental Protection Agency''.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.281 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.281  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (f) Approval. On March 16, 2009, the California Air Resources Board
submitted the ``California Regional Haze Plan'' (``CRHP''). The CRHP,
as amended and supplemented on September 8, 2009 and June 9, 2010,
meets the requirements of Clean Air Act section 169B and the Regional
Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308.

0
4. Part 52 is amended by adding a new Sec.  52.283 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.283  Interstate Transport.

    (a) Approval. On November 16, 2007, the California Air Resources
Board submitted the ``Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard and PM2.5 to
satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
the State of California (September 21, 2007)'' (``2007 Transport
SIP''). The 2007 Transport SIP and the additional plan elements listed
below meet the following specific requirements of Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS (``1997 standards'').
    (1) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding
interference with other states' measures to protect visibility for the
1997 standards are met by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4
(California 2018 Progress Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) of
the ``California Regional Haze Plan,'' adopted January 22, 2009.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2011-14479 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58471-58472]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20620]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0295; FRL-10162-01-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Revisions to Part 1 and 2 Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules Part 1
Definitions, and Part 2 Air Use Approval for inclusion in

the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). Additionally, EPA is
rescinding rules from the SIP that are part of Michigan's title V
Renewable Operating Permit program and rules that have been moved to
other sections of the Michigan rulebook and approved into the Michigan
SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2022-0295 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. 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: Constantine Blathras, 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 protected].
The EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to
COVID-19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives such
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: September 19, 2022.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2022-20620 Filed 9-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P