Adequacy Status of the Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes, 40295-40296 [E7-14316]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 24, 2007 / Notices
to access those documents in the docket
that are available electronically. Once in
the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then
key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA’s policy is
that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public
viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose public disclosure is
restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket,
go to www.regulations.gov.
Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements under EPA’s WasteWise
Program.
ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1698.07,
OMB Control No. 2050–0139.
ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to
expire on July 31, 2007. Under OMB
regulations, the Agency may continue to
conduct or sponsor the collection of
information while this submission is
pending at OMB. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information, unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after
appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9,
are displayed either by publication in
the Federal Register or by other
appropriate means, such as on the
related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control
numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
Abstract: EPA’s voluntary WasteWise
program encourages businesses and
other organizations to reduce solid
waste through waste prevention,
recycling, and the purchase or
manufacture of recycled-content
products. WasteWise participants
include partners, who commit to
implementing waste reduction activities
of their choice, and endorsers which
promote the WasteWise program and
waste reduction to their members.
The Partner Registration Form
identifies an organization and its
facilities registering to participate in
WasteWise, and requires the signature
of a senior official that can commit the
organization to the program. (This form
can be submitted either electronically or
in hard copy.) Within six months of
registering, each partner is asked to
conduct a waste assessment and submit
baseline data and waste reduction goals
to EPA via the Annual Assessment
Form. (This form can also be submitted
either electronically or in hard copy.)
On an annual basis partners are asked
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Jul 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
to report, via the Annual Assessment
Form, on their progress toward
achieving their waste reduction goals by
estimating amounts of waste prevented
and recyclables collected, and
describing buying or manufacturing
recycled-content products. They can
also provide WasteWise with
information on total waste prevention
revenue, total recycling revenue, total
avoided purchasing costs due to waste
prevention, and total avoided disposal
costs due to recycling and waste
prevention. Additionally, they are asked
to submit new waste reduction goals.
Endorsers, which are typically trade
associations or State/local governments,
submit the Endorser Registration Form
once during their endorser relationship
with WasteWise. (This form can be
submitted either electronically or in
hard copy.) The Endorser Registration
Form identifies the organization, the
principal contact, and the activities to
which the Endorser commits.
EPA’s WasteWise program uses the
submitted information to (1) identify
and recognize outstanding waste
reduction achievements by individual
organizations, (2) compile aggregate
results that indicate overall
accomplishments of WasteWise
partners, (3) identify cost-effective waste
reduction strategies to share with other
organizations, and (4) identify topics on
which to develop assistance and
information efforts.
Burden Statement: The respondent
burden for this collection is estimated to
average 1 hour per response for the
Partner Registration Form, 40 hours per
response for the Annual Assessment
Form, and 10 hours per response for the
Endorser Registration Form.
The estimated number of respondents
is 1,775 in Year 1; 1,875 in Year 2; and
1,975 in Year 3. Estimated total annual
burden on all respondents is 66,350
hours in Year 1; 70,350 hours in Year 2;
and 74,350 hours in Year 3.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40295
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
Respondents/Affected Entities: Private
Sector; State, Local, or Tribal
Governments; and the Federal
Government.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,875.
Frequency of Response: Once per
year.
Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:
70,350.
Estimated Total Annual Cost:
Includes $0 annualized capital or O&M
costs, and $4,245,450 annual labor
costs.
Changes in the Estimates: There is an
increase of 13,650 hours in the total
estimated burden currently identified in
the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR
Burdens. This increase is due to an
adjustment stemming from the
increased number of partners.
Dated: July 18, 2007.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies
Division.
[FR Doc. E7–14263 Filed 7–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0584; FRL–8444–4]
Adequacy Status of the Bi-State
Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets for Transportation
Conformity Purposes
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is
notifying the public that we have found
that the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets (MVEBs) in Kentucky’s bi-state
Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance
State Implementation Plan (SIP),
submitted on September 29, 2006, by
the Kentucky Division of Air Quality
(KDAQ), are adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. As a result of
EPA’s finding, the bi-state Louisville
area must use the MVEBs from the
September 29, 2006, bi-state Louisville
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance SIP for
future conformity determinations for the
8-hour ozone standard. In a separate
rulemaking, EPA has already approved
these MVEBs. These MVEBs are
identical to the MVEBs established for
this area in the Indiana SIP.
DATES: These MVEBs were effective the
date of publication (July 5, 2007) for the
final rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynorae Benjamin, Environmental
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
40296
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 24, 2007 / Notices
Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch,
Air Quality Modeling and
Transportation Section, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Ms.
Benjamin can also be reached by
telephone at (404) 562–9040, or via
electronic mail at
benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. The finding
is available at EPA’s conformity Web
site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This notice is simply an
announcement of a finding that EPA has
already made. EPA Region 4 sent a letter
to KDAQ on June 18, 2007, stating that
the MVEBs in Kentucky’s SIP,
submitted on September 29, 2006, are
adequate. The bi-state Louisville 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area is comprised
of the following five counties: Bullitt,
Oldham and Jefferson counties in
Kentucky and Clark and Floyd counties
in Indiana. EPA’s adequacy comment
period for Kentucky’s SIP ran from
April 27, 2007, through May 29, 2007.
During EPA’s adequacy comment period
no comments regarding the adequacy of
the MVEBs were received. This finding
has also been announced on EPA’s
conformity Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/pastsips.htm. The adequate
MVEBs are provided in the following
table:
BI-STATE LOUISVILLE 8-HOUR OZONE
MVEBS
[Tons per day]
2003
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VOC ..................
NOX ..................
2020
40.97
95.51
22.92
29.46
EPA has already approved these MVEBs
in a separate rulemaking (72 FR 36601,
July 5, 2007), and is providing this
notice for informational purposes.
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act,
as amended in 1990. EPA’s conformity
rule requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to state
air quality implementation plans and
establishes the criteria and procedures
for determining whether or not they do.
Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards.
The criteria by which EPA determines
whether a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Jul 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
outlined in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations 93.118(e)(4). We have
described the process for determining
the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets
in our July 1, 2004, final rulemaking
entitled, ‘‘ Transportation Conformity
Rule Amendments for the New 8-hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments: Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Changes’’
(69 FR 40004). Please note that an
adequacy review is separate from EPA’s
completeness review, and it also should
not be used to prejudge EPA’s ultimate
approval of the SIP. Even if EPA finds
the MVEBs adequate, the Agency may
later determine that the SIP itself is not
approvable.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 25, 2007.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7–14316 Filed 7–23–07; 8:45 am]
from the National Information Center
website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received at the Reserve Bank
indicated or the offices of the Board of
Governors not later than August 17,
2007.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
(Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice
President) 230 South LaSalle Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1. Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc.,
Coldwater, Michigan; to merge with
FNB Financial Corporation, and thereby
indirectly acquire First National Bank of
Three Rivers, both of Three Rivers,
Michigan.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, July 19, 2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7–14253 Filed 7–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–S
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Formations of, Acquisitions by, and
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
[60Day–07–0338]
The companies listed in this notice
have applied to the Board for approval,
pursuant to the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)
(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part
225), and all other applicable statutes
and regulations to become a bank
holding company and/or to acquire the
assets or the ownership of, control of, or
the power to vote shares of a bank or
bank holding company and all of the
banks and nonbanking companies
owned by the bank holding company,
including the companies listed below.
The applications listed below, as well
as other related filings required by the
Board, are available for immediate
inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank
indicated. The application also will be
available for inspection at the offices of
the Board of Governors. Interested
persons may express their views in
writing on the standards enumerated in
the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the
proposal also involves the acquisition of
a nonbanking company, the review also
includes whether the acquisition of the
nonbanking company complies with the
standards in section 4 of the BHC Act
(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise
noted, nonbanking activities will be
conducted throughout the United States.
Additional information on all bank
holding companies may be obtained
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Proposed Data Collections Submitted
for Public Comment and
Recommendations
In compliance with the requirement
of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for
opportunity for public comment on
proposed data collection projects, the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic
summaries of proposed projects. To
request more information on the
proposed projects or to obtain a copy of
the data collection plans and
instruments, call 404–371–5976 or send
comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC
Assistant Reports Clearance Officer,
1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta,
GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
omb@cdc.gov.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40295-40296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14316]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0584; FRL-8444-4]
Adequacy Status of the Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Motor
Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that we have found
that the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in Kentucky's bi-state
Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance State Implementation Plan (SIP),
submitted on September 29, 2006, by the Kentucky Division of Air
Quality (KDAQ), are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. As
a result of EPA's finding, the bi-state Louisville area must use the
MVEBs from the September 29, 2006, bi-state Louisville 8-Hour Ozone
Maintenance SIP for future conformity determinations for the 8-hour
ozone standard. In a separate rulemaking, EPA has already approved
these MVEBs. These MVEBs are identical to the MVEBs established for
this area in the Indiana SIP.
DATES: These MVEBs were effective the date of publication (July 5,
2007) for the final rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynorae Benjamin, Environmental
[[Page 40296]]
Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning
Branch, Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Ms. Benjamin can also be reached by
telephone at (404) 562-9040, or via electronic mail at
benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. The finding is available at EPA's conformity
Web site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
currsips.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This notice is simply an announcement of a finding that EPA has
already made. EPA Region 4 sent a letter to KDAQ on June 18, 2007,
stating that the MVEBs in Kentucky's SIP, submitted on September 29,
2006, are adequate. The bi-state Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area is comprised of the following five counties: Bullitt, Oldham and
Jefferson counties in Kentucky and Clark and Floyd counties in Indiana.
EPA's adequacy comment period for Kentucky's SIP ran from April 27,
2007, through May 29, 2007. During EPA's adequacy comment period no
comments regarding the adequacy of the MVEBs were received. This
finding has also been announced on EPA's conformity Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/pastsips.htm. The adequate
MVEBs are provided in the following table:
Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone MVEBs
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC........................................... 40.97 22.92
NOX........................................... 95.51 29.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has already approved these MVEBs in a separate rulemaking (72 FR
36601, July 5, 2007), and is providing this notice for informational
purposes.
Transportation conformity is required by section 176 (c) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. EPA's conformity rule requires that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to state air
quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP
means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the national ambient air quality standards.
The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations 93.118(e)(4). We have described the process for
determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004,
final rulemaking entitled, `` Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments
for the New 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision
and Additional Rule Changes'' (69 FR 40004). Please note that an
adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also
should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even
if EPA finds the MVEBs adequate, the Agency may later determine that
the SIP itself is not approvable.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 25, 2007.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7-14316 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P