Adequacy Status of the Metro-East St. Louis, IL, Submitted 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes, 6719-6720 [E8-2084]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices
clearance is required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the
Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for implementing NEPA (40
CFR parts 1500–1508); and DOE NEPA
Implementing Procedures and
Guidelines (10 CFR part 1021),
Southwestern has determined that this
draft determination is not addressed
under DOE NEPA Implementing
Procedures and Guidelines for Power
Marketing Administrations, and no
further action is required.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
imposes certain requirements on
agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt
State law or that have federalism
implications. Southwestern is not
formulating or implementing policies or
regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications.
Executive Order 13132 does not apply.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3, (a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and
(3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard and promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Federal agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Federal agencies to
determine whether the regulations meet
the applicable standard in section 3(a)
and section 3(b), or it is unreasonable to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Feb 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
meet one or more of them. Southwestern
is not reviewing existing regulations or
promulgating new regulations.
Executive Order 12988 does not apply.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4
(1995)) requires each Federal agency to
assess the effects of a Federal regulatory
action on State, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector.
Southwestern has determined that the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
does not apply to the draft
determination.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 (112 Stat 2681–528) of the
Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–
277, (1998)) requires Federal agencies to
issue a Family Policymaking
Assessment for any rule that may affect
family well-being. This draft
determination is not a rule. Therefore,
Section 654 (112 Stat 2681–528) of the
Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–
277, (1998)) does not apply.
I. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001.
The Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
(44 U.S.C. 3316 note) provides for
agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). OMB’s guidelines were
published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22,
2002), and DOE’s guidelines were
published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7,
2002). Southwestern has reviewed this
notice under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is
consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA), Office of Management and
Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for
any proposed significant energy action.
A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined
as: (1) Any action by an agency that
promulgated or is expected to lead to
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6719
promulgation of a final rule; (2) is a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor
order; and (3) is likely to have
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, or is
designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
This draft determination is not an
energy action. Executive Order 13211
does not apply.
III. Public Review and Comment
Procedures
Opportunity is presented for
interested parties to receive copies of
the Draft Report detailing
Southwestern’s determination of the
Federal and non-Federal hydropower
impacts. If you desire a copy of the
report, submit your request to Mr.
George Robbins, Director, Division of
Resources and Rates, Southwestern
Power Administration, One West Third,
Tulsa, OK 74103, (918) 595–6680.
Written comments on Southwestern’s
determination are due on or before
March 6, 2008. Comments should be
submitted to George Robbins, Director,
Division of Resources and Rates,
Southwestern, at the above-mentioned
address for Southwestern’s offices.
Southwestern will review and address
the written comments, making any
necessary changes to the draft
determination. The Administrator will
then submit the final determination to
the Corps of Engineers.
Dated: January 30, 2008.
Jon Worthington,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–2085 Filed 2–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R05–OAR–2007–0653; FRL–8525–4]
Adequacy Status of the Metro-East St.
Louis, IL, Submitted 8-Hour Ozone
Attainment Demonstration and State
Implementation Plan for
Transportation Conformity Purposes
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM
05FEN1
6720
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is
notifying the public that we have found
that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs) for 8-hour ozone in
Metro-East St. Louis (Madison, Monroe,
St. Clair, and Jersey Counties), Illinois,
are adequate for conformity purposes.
As a result of our finding, Metro-East St.
Louis must use the MVEBs from the 8hour ozone attainment demonstration
and state implementation plan (SIP)
submitted on July 2, 2007, for future
conformity determinations.
DATES: This finding is effective February
20, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist, Criteria
Pollutant Section (AR–18J), Air
Programs Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 353–8777,
Maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Background
Today’s action is simply an
announcement of a finding that we have
already made. EPA Region 5 sent a letter
to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency on December 19, 2007, stating
that the 2008 and 2009 MVEBs in
Metro-East St. Louis are adequate.
Illinois submitted the budgets on July 2,
2007, as part of the 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration for this area.
This submittal was announced on EPA’s
conformity Web site, and received no
comments: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm,
(once there, click on ‘‘What SIP
submissions are currently under EPA
adequacy review?’’).
The 2008 and 2009 MVEBs, in tons
per day (tpd), for volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) for Metro-East St. Louis
(Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, and Jersey
Counties) are as follows:
2008 MVEB
(tpd)
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
VOC ..................
NOX ..................
2009 MVEB
(tpd)
14.27
34.87
13.44
31.94
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Feb 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 we determine
whether a SIP’s motor vehicle emission
budgets are adequate for conformity
purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). We have described our
process for determining the adequacy of
submitted SIP budgets in our July 1,
2004, preamble starting at 69 FR 40038,
and we used the information in these
resources while making our adequacy
determination. 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 we find a
budget adequate, the SIP could later be
disapproved.
The finding and the response to
comments are available at EPA’s
conformity Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/adequacy.htm.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671 q.
Dated: January 24, 2008.
Margaret Guerriero,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E8–2084 Filed 2–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OECA–2007–0052 FRL–8525–3]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment
Request; NESHAP for Epoxy Resin and
Non-Nylon Polyamide Production
(Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1681.06,
OMB Control Number 2060–0290
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces
that an Information Collection Request
(ICR) has been forwarded to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval. This is a request
to renew an existing approved
collection. The ICR which is abstracted
below describes the nature of the
collection and the estimated burden and
cost.
DATES: Additional comments may be
submitted on or before March 6, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
referencing docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OECA–2007–0052, to (1) EPA online
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
using https://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to
docket.oeca@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental
Protection Agency, Enforcement and
Compliance Docket and Information
Center, mail code 2201T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at:
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Learia Williams, Compliance
Assessment and Media Programs
Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2223A, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564–4113; fax number:
(202) 564–0050; e-mail address:
williams.learia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has
submitted the following ICR to OMB for
review and approval according to the
procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12.
On March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10735), EPA
sought comments on this ICR pursuant
to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no
comments. Any additional comments on
this ICR should be submitted to EPA
and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket
for this ICR under docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OECA–2007–0052, which is
available for public viewing online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person
viewing at the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket and Information
Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is (202)
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the Enforcement and Compliance
Docket is (202) 566–1752.
Use EPA’s electronic docket and
comment system at https://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view
public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the docket, and
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 https://www.regulations.gov,
as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains
E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM
05FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6719-6720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2084]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0653; FRL-8525-4]
Adequacy Status of the Metro-East St. Louis, IL, Submitted 8-Hour
Ozone Attainment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan for
Transportation Conformity Purposes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6720]]
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that we have found
that the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for 8-hour ozone in
Metro-East St. Louis (Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, and Jersey Counties),
Illinois, are adequate for conformity purposes. As a result of our
finding, Metro-East St. Louis must use the MVEBs from the 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration and state implementation plan (SIP) submitted
on July 2, 2007, for future conformity determinations.
DATES: This finding is effective February 20, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)
353-8777, Maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Background
Today's action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. EPA Region 5 sent a letter to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency on December 19, 2007, stating that the 2008 and 2009
MVEBs in Metro-East St. Louis are adequate. Illinois submitted the
budgets on July 2, 2007, as part of the 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration for this area. This submittal was announced on EPA's
conformity Web site, and received no comments: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm, (once there, click on ``What SIP
submissions are currently under EPA adequacy review?'').
The 2008 and 2009 MVEBs, in tons per day (tpd), for volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for
Metro-East St. Louis (Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, and Jersey Counties)
are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 MVEB 2009 MVEB
(tpd) (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC........................................... 14.27 13.44
NOX........................................... 34.87 31.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. 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 we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle
emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described our process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, preamble
starting at 69 FR 40038, and we used the information in these resources
while making our adequacy determination. 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 we
find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
The finding and the response to comments are available at EPA's
conformity Web site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
adequacy.htm.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 q.
Dated: January 24, 2008.
Margaret Guerriero,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E8-2084 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P