8736 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2011 / Notices 

of nitrogen and sulfur are available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/ 

index.html. 

2See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/review.html 

for a copy of Administrator Jackson’s May 21, 2009, 

memorandum and for additional information on the 

NAAQS review process. 

1EPA has determined that the Greater 

Connecticut area has attained the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. See 75 FR 53219; August 31, 2010. 

EPA has not yet taken action regarding the 

Southwest Connecticut area. 

announced today, Policy Assessment for 

the Review of the Secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur, contains 

staff analyses of the scientific bases for 

alternative policy options for 

consideration by the Agency prior to 

rulemaking. This document, which 

builds upon the historical ‘‘Staff Paper,’’ 

will serve to ‘‘bridge the gap’’ between 

the available scientific information and 

the judgments required of the 

Administrator in determining whether it 

is appropriate to retain or revise the 

standards.2 The current and potential 

alternative standards for oxides of 

nitrogen and sulfur are considered in 

terms of the basic elements of the 

NAAQS: indicator, averaging time, 

form, and level. The Policy Assessment 

builds upon information presented in 

the Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur— 

Ecological Criteria: Final report (ISA, 

EPA EPA/600/R–08/082F, December 

2008) and the quantitative risk and 

exposure assessment document (REA)— 

Risk and Exposure Assessment for 

Review of the Secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur 

(EPA–452/R–09–008a and EPA–452/R– 

09–008b; September 2009). 

A first draft Policy Assessment (EPA– 

452/P–10–006) was released in March 

2010 to facilitate discussion with the 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee (CASAC) at an April 1–2, 

2010 meeting on the overall structure, 

areas of focus, and level of detail to be 

included in the Policy Assessment (75 

FR 10479–10481, March 2010). 

CASAC’s comments on the first draft 

Policy Assessment encouraged the 

development of a document focused on 

the key policy-relevant issues that 

draws from and is not repetitive of 

information in the ISA and REA. These 

comments were considered in 

developing a second draft Policy 

Assessment (EPA 452/P–10–008, 

September 2010). The EPA presented an 

overview of the second draft Policy 

Assessment at a CASAC meeting on 

October 6–7, 2010 (75 FR 54871–54872). 

CASAC (EPA–CASAC–11–003) and 

public comments on the second draft 

Policy Assessment were considered by 

EPA staff in developing both the January 

14, 2011 version and this current 

version of the final Policy Assessment, 

which reflects final editing and 

formatting, and is available through the 

Agency’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN) Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/ 

cr_pa.html. CASAC has requested a 

February 15–16, 2011, meeting to 

review EPA’s final Policy Assessment. 

Dated: February 9, 2011. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3382 Filed 2–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0117; A–1–FRL– 

9267–1] 

Status of Motor Vehicle Budgets in 

Submitted State Implementation Plan 

for Transportation Conformity 

Purposes; Connecticut; Notice of 

Withdrawal of Adequacy of Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of 

adequacy. 

SUMMARY: EPA is notifying the public 

that EPA has withdrawn its previous 

adequacy finding on the 2012 motor 

vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 

Connecticut’s two 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. EPA has 

withdrawn the adequacy finding 

because Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection (CT DEP) 

withdrew its 2012 motor vehicle 

emission budgets from its eight-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration SIP for 

both ozone nonattainment areas. As a 

result of our finding, Connecticut can 

not use these 2012 motor vehicle 

emission budgets for future conformity 

determinations. 

DATES: This finding is effective March 2, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald O. Cooke, Environmental 

Scientist, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, Five 

Post Office Square, Suite 100 (CAQ), 

Boston, MA 02109–3912, (617) 918– 

1668, cooke.donald@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. 

Today’s action is simply an 

announcement of a finding that we have 

already made. 

On February 1, 2008, Connecticut 

submitted 2008, 2009, and 2012 summer 

day volatile organic compound (VOC) 

and nitrogen oxides (NOx) MVEBs for 

the Connecticut portion of the New 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, 

NY–NJ–CT (Southwest Connecticut) 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area and for 

the Greater Connecticut 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. These MVEBs were 

submitted to EPA as part of the 8-hour 

ozone attainment demonstrations and 

reasonable further progress plans for 

these areas. Although not required by 

the Clean Air Act or EPA regulation, 

Connecticut included the 2012 budgets 

in its ozone attainment demonstrations 

based on uncertainty as to whether 

attainment would be met by the 

applicable June 15, 2010 attainment 

date for the two nonattainment areas. 

EPA found Connecticut’s 2008, 2009, 

and 2012 MVEBs adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. See 

73 FR 33428; June 12, 2008. 

On August 23, 2010, CT DEP 

withdrew the 2012 MVEBs from its 8- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

SIP for both ozone nonattainment areas. 

At that time, CT DEP also requested that 

EPA withdraw the adequacy findings for 

the 2012 MVEBs, since both ozone 

nonattainment areas have monitored air 

quality data demonstrating attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard, and the 

2012 MVEBs are no longer necessary to 

ensure attainment.1

Connecticut’s request to withdraw the 

2012 MVEBs was announced on EPA’s 

conformity Web site, and received no 

comments. (See http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/stateresources/transconf/ 

adequacy.htm. Once there, click on 

‘‘What SIP submissions are currently 

under EPA adequacy review?’’) 

On December 30, 2010, EPA sent a 

letter to the CT DEP withdrawing our 

previous adequacy finding on the 2012 

MVEBs for the Southwest Connecticut 

and the Greater Connecticut 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas. 

The 2012 MVEBs are withdrawn for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

However, the 2008 (reasonable further 

progress) MVEBs and the 2009 

(attainment) MVEBs that were 

previously deemed adequate, remain 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671 q. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2011 / Notices 8737 

Dated: February 1, 2011. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3385 Filed 2–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Public Information 

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the 

Federal Communications Commission, 

Comments Requested 

February 8, 2011. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burden 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection(s), as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

Comments are requested concerning: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, and (e) ways to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

The FCC may not conduct or sponsor 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid control 

number. No person shall be subject to 

any penalty for failing to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that 

does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) comments should be 

submitted on or before April 18, 2011. 

If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting PRA comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the FCC contact listed below as 

soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via fax at 202– 

395–5167 or via the Internet at 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov and 

to the Federal Communications 

Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leslie F. Smith, Office of Managing 

Director, (202) 418–0217, or via the 

Internet at Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0430. 

Title: Section 1.1206, Permit-butDisclose Proceedings. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Individuals or 

household; Business or other for-profit; 

Not-for-profit institutions; Federal 

Government; and State, local, or tribal 

government. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 9,990 respondents; 9,990 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirements; recordkeeping; 

third party disclosure. 

Obligation To Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in Sections 4(i) and 4(j), 

303(r), and 409 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 

154(i) and 154(j), 303(r), and 409. 

Total Annual Burden: 4,995 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $0.00. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No 

impacts. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

The Commission is not requesting that 

the respondents submit confidential 

information to the FCC. Respondents 

may, however, request confidential 

treatment for information they believe to 

be confidential under 47 CFR 0.459 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Needs and Uses: The Commission’s 

rules, under 47 CFR 1.1206, require that 

a public record be made of ex parte 

presentations (i.e., written presentations 

not served on all parties to the 

proceeding or oral presentations as to 

which all parties have not been given 

notice and an opportunity to be present) 

to decision-making personnel in 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceedings, such 

as notice-and-comment rulemakings and 

declaratory ruling proceedings. Persons 

making such presentations must file two 

copies of written presentations and two 

copies of memoranda reflecting new 

data or arguments in oral presentations 

no later than the next business day after 

the presentation; alternatively, in 

proceedings in which electronic filing is 

permitted, a copy may be filed 

electronically. The information is used 

by parties to permit-but-disclose 

proceedings, including interested 

members of the public, to respond to the 

arguments made and data offered in the 

presentations. The responses may then 

be used by the Commission in its 

decision-making. The availability of the 

ex parte materials ensures that the 

Commission’s decisional processes are 

fair, impartial, and comport with the 

concept of due process in that all 

interested parties can know of and 

respond to the arguments made to the 

decision-making officials. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of 

Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3288 Filed 2–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC). 

ACTION: Notice of information 

collections to be submitted to OMB for 

review and approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the FDIC hereby gives notice 

that it plans to submit to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) a 

request for OMB review and approval of 

the information collections described 

below. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before March 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments to 

the FDIC by any of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/ 

laws/federal/notices.html. 

• E-mail: comments@fdic.gov. 

Include the name of the collection in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Leneta G. Gregorie (202–898– 

3719), Counsel, Room F–1084, Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. 

• Hand Delivery: Comments may be 

hand-delivered to the guard station at 

the rear of the 17th Street Building 

(located on F Street), on business days 

between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

All comments should refer to the 

relevant OMB control number. A copy 

of the comments may also be submitted 

to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: 

Office of Information and Regulatory 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES