Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Notices 31031 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (ii) evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (iv) minimize the burden 

of the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including through 

the use of appropriate automated 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. The EPA will consider the 

comments received and amend the ICR 

as appropriate. The final ICR package 

will then be submitted to OMB for 

review and approval. At that time, the 

EPA will issue another Federal Register 

notice to announce the submission of 

the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to 

submit additional comments to 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. 

Abstract: The final implementation 

rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 

PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule) 

was promulgated on April 25, 2007 (79 

FR 20586). This rule provided the 

framework of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements for air agencies to meet in 

attainment plans to achieve the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in designated 

nonattainment areas. States also applied 

this framework to develop attainment 

plans for areas designated 

nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS revised by the agency in 2006 

(74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009; 76 

FR 6056; February 3, 2011). 

The ICR originally finalized with the 

2007 PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation 

Rule had estimated, for the 3 years 

following the ICR approval date, the 

burden to air agencies to develop and 

submit, and the burden to the EPA to 

review and to approve or disapprove, 

attainment plans to meet the 

requirements prescribed in CAA 

sections 110 and part D, subpart 1 of 

title I. A PM2.5 attainment plan contains 

rules and other measures designed to 

improve air quality and achieve the 

NAAQS by the deadlines established 

under the CAA. It also must address 

several additional CAA requirements 

related to demonstrating timely 

attainment, and must contain 

contingency measures in the event the 

nonattainment area does not achieve 

reasonable further progress throughout 

the attainment period or in the event the 

area does not attain the NAAQS by its 

attainment date. After a state submits an 

attainment plan, the CAA requires the 

EPA to approve or disapprove the plan. 

Tribes may develop or submit 

attainment plans, but are not required to 

do so. 

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (DC Circuit) remanded the 2007 

PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule, 

concluding that the agency had erred in 

implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS 

according to only the general 

nonattainment area planning provisions 

of subpart 1, part D, title I of the CAA, 

rather than in accordance with the PMspecific planning requirements of 

subpart 4, part D, title I of the CAA and 

certain general planning provisions in 

subpart 1. On March 23, 2015, the EPA 

proposed a new implementation rule 

(80 FR 15340) consistent with the 

attainment planning requirements under 

CAA subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I, 

that would apply to ongoing 

implementation efforts by air agencies 

in areas designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as 

well as to new efforts in areas recently 

designated nonattainment for the most 

recent 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As part of its 

proposed implementation rule, the EPA 

also proposed a new ICR to cover the 3- 

year period after the ICR is approved by 

OMB, which would account for both the 

burden associated with plan revisions 

related to ongoing implementation 

efforts for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS as well as the additional cost 

burden to air agencies developing 

attainment plans for areas designated 

nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. Once final, the new ICR will 

supersede the existing ICR—for which 

the EPA is proposing renewal in this 

action—for purposes of PM2.5 NAAQS 

implementation. In the meantime, while 

the EPA completes its current 

rulemaking and finalizes the new ICR, 

the agency is hereby proposing a 

renewal of the existing ICR that would 

continue to apply during this interim 

period. 

Respondents/affected entities: State 

and local governments. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory. 

Currently approved estimated number 

of respondents: 95 (total). 

Frequency of response: Once per 

triggering event [i.e., each air agency 

with a newly-designated nonattainment 

area or an area reclassified to a higher 

classification is required to revise its 

State Implementation Plan (SIP)]. 

Currently approved total estimated 

burden: 175,400 hours (per year). 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b). 

Total estimated cost: $0 annualized 

capital or operation & maintenance 

costs. 

Changes in estimates: The EPA 

expects there to be a reduction in excess 

of 50 percent in the total estimated 

respondent burden compared with the 

information collection that is currently 

approved by OMB. This decrease is due 

to the fact that the EPA estimates that 

only six areas may be candidates for 

reclassification triggering new submittal 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, as compared to 31 

nonattainment areas initially designated 

for that NAAQS. In addition, one of the 

six areas (San Joaquin Valley, CA) 

remains nonattainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The burden estimate, 

detailed in the supporting statement 

located in the docket for this proposed 

renewal, accounts for new SIP revisions 

from states with nonattainment areas 

potentially subject to reclassification. 

Dated: May 21, 2015. 

Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13131 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9928–46–OGC] 

Proposed Settlement Agreement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement 

agreement; request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) of the Clean Air Act (the ‘‘Act’’), 

42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given 

of a proposed settlement agreement to 

address a lawsuit filed by National 

Parks Conservation Association, 

Minnesota Center for Environmental 

Advocacy, Friends of the Boundary 

Waters, Voyageurs National Park 

Association, Fresh Energy, and the 

Sierra Club (collectively, ‘‘Plaintiffs’’) 

and Intervenor Defendant Northern 

States Power Company Minnesota, d/b/ 

a Xcel Energy in the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Minnesota: National Parks Conservation 

Association, et al. v. EPA, Civ. No. 12– 

3043 (D. Minn.). On December 5, 2012, 

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that 

the Administrator of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) had failed to perform a 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
31032 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Notices 

mandatory duty to respond to a 2009 

letter by the Department of the Interior 

(‘‘DOI’’) certifying that visibility 

impairment in Minnesota’s Voyageurs 

National Park and Michigan’s Isle 

Royale National Park is reasonably 

attributable to emissions from Xcel 

Energy’s coal-fired Sherburne County 

Generating Station (‘‘Sherco’’) in 

Minnesota. The proposed settlement 

agreement addresses Plaintiffs’ claims 

and establishes a deadline for EPA to 

take final action to revise the Minnesota 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (‘‘RAVI’’) Federal 

Implementation Plan (‘‘FIP’’). 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed settlement agreement must be 

received by July 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OGC–2015–0347, online at 

www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred 

method); by email to oei.docket@

epa.gov; by mail to EPA Docket Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

or by hand delivery or courier to EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. Comments on 

a disk or CD–ROM should be formatted 

in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use 

of special characters and any form of 

encryption, and may be mailed to the 

mailing address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew C. Marks, Air and Radiation 

Law Office (2344A), Office of General 

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 

564–3276; fax number (202) 564–5603; 

email address: marks.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Settlement Agreement 

On October 21, 2009, DOI provided a 

letter to EPA in which DOI stated ‘‘that 

there exists reasonably attributable 

impairment of visibility at Voyageurs 

and Isle Royale due to emissions from 

the Sherco facility.’’ On December 5, 

2012, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in 

this litigation alleging that, since 

receiving DOI’s letter, the Administrator 

had failed to perform a mandatory duty 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4)(iii) and 

(iv) to promulgate a federal RAVI best 

available retrofit technology (‘‘BART’’) 

determination for Sherco. In response to 

the lawsuit, EPA filed an answer on 

February 1, 2013, denying that the 

Administrator has a mandatory duty to 

promulgate RAVI BART for Sherco 

because EPA has not determined that 

visibility impairment at one or more 

Class I areas is reasonably attributable to 

emissions from Sherco. On March 25, 

2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended 

Complaint, alleging that the 

Administrator had failed to perform a 

mandatory duty ‘‘to identify and 

analyze for BART each existing 

stationary facility which may reasonably 

be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

impairment of visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area where 

the impairment in the mandatory Class 

I Federal area is reasonably attributable 

to that existing stationary facility.’’ 

The proposed settlement agreement 

would resolve the lawsuit filed by 

Plaintiffs by establishing that EPA will 

propose to revise the Minnesota RAVI 

FIP to include specific sulfur dioxide 

(‘‘SO2’’) emission limitations for Sherco 

Units 1, 2, and 3, and take final action 

on the proposal within seven months of 

the effective date of the settlement 

agreement. The proposed settlement 

agreement also provides that nothing in 

the agreement shall be construed to 

limit or modify any discretion afforded 

EPA by the Act or by general principles 

of administrative law in taking those 

actions. See the proposed settlement 

agreement and attachment for specific 

details. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, the Agency will accept written 

comments relating to the proposed 

settlement agreement from persons who 

were not named as parties or 

intervenors to the litigation in question. 

EPA or the Department of Justice may 

withdraw or withhold consent to the 

proposed settlement agreement if the 

comments disclose facts or 

considerations that indicate that such 

consent is inappropriate, improper, 

inadequate, or inconsistent with the 

requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or 

the Department of Justice determines 

that consent to this settlement 

agreement should be withdrawn, the 

terms of the agreement will be affirmed. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed 

Settlement Agreement 

A. How can I get a copy of the 

settlement agreement? 

The official public docket for this 

action (identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OGC–2015–0347) contains a 

copy of the proposed settlement 

agreement. The official public docket is 

available for public viewing at the 

Office of Environmental Information 

(OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. 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 Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566– 

1752. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through 

www.regulations.gov. You may use the 

www.regulations.gov to submit or view 

public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

system, key in the appropriate docket 

identification number then select 

‘‘search’’. 

It is important to note that EPA’s 

policy is that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing online at www.regulations.gov 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information 

claimed as CBI and other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute 

is not included in the official public 

docket or in the electronic public 

docket. EPA’s policy is that copyrighted 

material, including copyrighted material 

contained in a public comment, will not 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the EPA Docket 

Center. 

B. How and to whom do I submit 

comments? 

You may submit comments as 

provided in the ADDRESSES section. 

Please ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to 

consider these late comments. 

If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name, mailing address, and an email 

address or other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD ROM you submit. This 

ensures that you can be identified as the 

submitter of the comment and allows 

EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot 

read your comment due to technical 

difficulties or needs further information 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Notices 31033 

on the substance of your comment. Any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket, 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web 

site to submit comments to EPA 

electronically is EPA’s preferred method 

for receiving comments. The electronic 

public docket system is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, which means EPA will 

not know your identity, email address, 

or other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

In contrast to EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s electronic mail (email) 

system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system. If you send an email comment 

directly to the Docket without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address is automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the official public 

docket, and made available in EPA’s 

electronic public docket. 

Dated: May 20, 2015. 

Lorie J. Schmidt, 

Associate General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13127 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Notice to all Interested Parties of the 

Termination of the Receivership of 

10274, NorthWest Bank and Trust, 

Acworth, Georgia 

Notice is hereby given that the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’) 

as Receiver for NorthWest Bank and 

Trust, Acworth, Georgia (‘‘the 

Receiver’’) intends to terminate its 

receivership for said institution. The 

FDIC was appointed receiver of 

NorthWest Bank and Trust on July 30, 

2010. The liquidation of the 

receivership assets has been completed. 

To the extent permitted by available 

funds and in accordance with law, the 

Receiver will be making a final dividend 

payment to proven creditors. 

Based upon the foregoing, the 

Receiver has determined that the 

continued existence of the receivership 

will serve no useful purpose. 

Consequently, notice is given that the 

receivership shall be terminated, to be 

effective no sooner than thirty days after 

the date of this Notice. If any person 

wishes to comment concerning the 

termination of the receivership, such 

comment must be made in writing and 

sent within thirty days of the date of 

this Notice to: Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation, Division of 

Resolutions and Receiverships, 

Attention: Receivership Oversight 

Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, 

Dallas, TX 75201. 

No comments concerning the 

termination of this receivership will be 

considered which are not sent within 

this time frame. 

Dated: May 27, 2015. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13121 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or 

Bank Holding Company 

The notificants listed below have 

applied under the Change in Bank 

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 

§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 

CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank 

or bank holding company. The factors 

that are considered in acting on the 

notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of 

the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices 

also will be available for inspection at 

the offices of the Board of Governors. 

Interested persons may express their 

views in writing to the Reserve Bank 

indicated for that notice or to the offices 

of the Board of Governors. Comments 

must be received not later than June 16, 

2015. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 

(Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice 

President) 230 South LaSalle Street, 

Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414: 

1. Ronald J. and Elizabeth A. 

Schowalter Living Trust, with Ronald J. 

Schowalter and Elizabeth A. Schowalter 

as co-trustees, all of Port Washington, 

Wisconsin; and the Ronald J. and 

Elizabeth A. Schowalter Living Trust, 

together as a group acting in concert 

with Mark D. Schowalter, Port 

Washington, Wisconsin, individually; 

the Mark D. Schowalter Family 

Endowment Trust and Mark D. 

Schowalter as trustee; the Schowalter 

Trusts f/b/o Steven R. Schowalter, Mark 

D. Schowalter, and Sally R. Savatski, 

with Steven R. Schowalter, Mark D. 

Schowalter, and Sally A. Savatski as cotrustees; Steven R. Schowalter, Port 

Washington, Wisconsin, individually; 

the Steven R. Schowalter Family 

Endowment Trust and Steven R. 

Schowalter as trustee; Sally A. Savatski, 

Port Washington, Wisconsin, 

individually; the Sally A. Savatski 

Family Endowment Trust and Sally A. 

Savatski as trustee; Wendy P. 

Schowalter, Port Washington, 

Wisconsin, individually; Catherine J. 

Schowalter, Port Washington, 

Wisconsin, individually; Robert A. 

Savatski, Port Washington, Wisconsin, 

individually; James S. Schowalter, Port 

Washington, Wisconsin, individually; 

Jennifer M. Schowalter, Port 

Washington, Wisconsin, individually; 

Mark D. Schowalter, Catherine J. 

Schowalter, Sally A. Savatski, Robert A. 

Savatski, James S. Schowalter, and 

Jennifer M. Schowalter, each as 

custodians under UGMA for certain 

Schowalter grandchildren, all of Port 

Washington, Wisconsin; Tracy N. 

Schowalter-Braun and Justin P. Braun, 

individually and as custodians under 

UGMA for certain Schowalter greatgrandchildren, all of Cedarburg, 

Wisconsin; and the Schowalter 

Grandchildren’s Trust, with Legacy 

Private Trust Company, as trustee, all of 

Neenah, Wisconsin; to retain voting 

shares of Port Bancshares, Inc., and 

thereby indirectly retain voting shares of 

Port Washington State Bank, both in 

Port Washington, Wisconsin. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, May 27, 2015. 

Michael J. Lewandowski, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13091 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Meeting of the Community Preventive 

Services Task Force (Task Force) 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) 

announces the next meeting of the 

Community Preventive Services Task 

Force (Task Force). The Task Force is an 

independent, nonpartisan, nonfederal, 

and unpaid panel. Its members 

represent a broad range of research, 

practice, and policy expertise in 

prevention, wellness, health promotion, 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES