Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Notices 31351 

1PM10 refers to particulate matter less than or 

equal to 10 microns in size. 

7Telephone record. 

Dated: May 21, 2012. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12733 Filed 5–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[R08–CO–2012–0001; FRL–9676–4] 

Adequacy Determination for Aspen 

PM10 and Fort Collins Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plans’ Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity Purposes; 

State of Colorado 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of adequacy. 

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is 

notifying the public that the Agency has 

found the following adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes: The 

‘‘Revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for the 

Aspen Attainment/Maintenance Area’’ 1

and its motor vehicle emissions budget, 

and the ‘‘Revised Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan Fort Collins 

Attainment/Maintenance Area.’’ As 

more fully explained in the 

Supplementary Information section of 

this notice, this finding will affect future 

transportation conformity 

determinations. 

DATES: This finding is effective June 11, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air Program, Mailcode 8P–AR, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129, telephone 

number (303) 312–6479, fax number 

(303) 312–6064, or email 

russ.tim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). The conformity rule provisions 

at 40 CFR 93 require that transportation 

plans, programs, and projects conform 

to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

establish 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 Standard 

(NAAQS). 

The criteria by which we determine 

whether a SIP revision’s motor vehicle 

emissions budget (MVEB) is adequate 

for conformity purposes are outlined in 

40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which was 

promulgated August 15, 1997 (62 FR 

43780). We described our process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP MVEBs in our July 1, 2004 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments (69 FR 40004). In 

addition, in certain areas with 

monitored ambient carbon monoxide 

(CO) values significantly below the 

NAAQS, EPA has allowed states to use 

limited maintenance plans (LMPs), 

which contain no future year 

maintenance projections and, therefore, 

no MVEBs. (See ‘‘Limited Maintenance 

Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ signed by Joseph 

Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy 

and Strategies Group (MD–15), October 

6, 1995, also known as EPA’s ‘‘LMP 

Policy.’’) In an area covered by an 

approved carbon monoxide LMP, the 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 

Transportation Improvement Program 

(TIP) are presumed to automatically 

satisfy the emissions budget test 

requirement, and no regional emissions 

analysis with respect to a MVEB under 

sections 40 CFR 93.118 or 93.119 (i.e., 

MVEB(s), build less than no-build, or 

build less than base year) of the 

conformity rule is required for RTP and 

TIP conformity. We used these 

resources in making our adequacy 

determinations announced in this 

notice. 

This notice is simply an 

announcement of findings that we have 

already made and are as described 

below: 

Aspen (PM10): The State submitted the 

‘‘Revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for the 

Aspen Attainment/Maintenance Area’’ 

on May 25, 2011. The State prepared the 

submittal to meet the requirements of 

section 175A(b) of the CAA for a second 

10-year maintenance plan. EPA sent a 

letter to the Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment 

(CDPHE) on August 11, 2011, stating 

that the submitted Aspen PM10 second 

10-year maintenance plan and the 2023 

p.m.10 MVEB were adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. We 

posted the ‘‘Revised PM10 Maintenance 

Plan for the Aspen Attainment/ 

Maintenance Area’’ for adequacy review 

on EPA’s transportation conformity Web 

site on June 20, 2011. The public 

comment period closed on July 20, 

2011, and we did not receive any 

comments in response to the adequacy 

review posting (see http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/stateresources/transconf/ 

currsips.htm#aspen). 

Fort Collins (Carbon Monoxide): The 

State submitted the ‘‘Revised Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan Fort 

Collins Attainment/Maintenance Area’’ 

on May 25, 2011. The State prepared the 

submittal to meet the requirements of 

section 175A(b) of the CAA for a second 

10-year maintenance plan and used, as 

appropriate, the provisions of EPA’s CO 

LMP policy. Thus, the LMP contains no 

MVEB. EPA sent a letter to the CDPHE 

on August 9, 2011, stating that the 

submitted Fort Collins second 10-year 

maintenance plan was adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. We 

posted the ‘‘Revised Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan Fort Collins 

Attainment/Maintenance Area’’ for 

adequacy review on EPA’s 

transportation conformity Web site on 

June 20, 2011. The public comment 

period closed on July 20, 2011, and we 

did not receive any comments in 

response to the adequacy review posting 

(see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/ 

currsips.htm#ftcollins). 

For the Aspen PM10 maintenance 

area, the MVEB we found adequate is 

1146 pounds of PM10 per day in 2023. 

Following the effective date listed in the 

DATES section of this notice, the 

Colorado Department of Transportation 

and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation are required to use this 

motor vehicle emissions budget for 

future transportation conformity 

determinations for projects in the Aspen 

PM10 maintenance area. As noted above, 

the ‘‘Revised Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan Fort Collins 

Attainment/Maintenance Area’’ 

contains no MVEB, and, under EPA’s 

LMP interpretation, the North Front 

Range Metropolitan Planning 

Organization, the Colorado Department 

of Transportation, and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation may 

presume that RTPs and TIPs satisfy the 

emissions budget test requirement with 

respect to such revised plan. However, 

prior MVEBs may apply as we described 

in our adequacy letter to the State. 

Please note that our adequacy review 

described above is separate from our 

rulemaking action on the two 

maintenance plans discussed above and 

should not be used to prejudge our 

ultimate approval or disapproval of each 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

31352 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Notices 

of the SIP revisions. Even if we find a 

maintenance plan or a maintenance 

plan and its MVEB adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes, we 

may later disapprove the SIP revision. 

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

Dated: April 30, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12797 Filed 5–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0007, FRL–9678–2] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; EPA Worker 

Protection Standards for Hazardous 

Waste Operations and Emergency 

Response (Renewal) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document 

announces that EPA is planning to 

submit a request to renew an existing 

approved Information Collection 

Request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

ICR is scheduled to expire on June 1, 

2012. Before submitting the ICR to OMB 

for review and approval, EPA is 

soliciting comments on specific aspects 

of the proposed information collection 

as described below. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before July 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2005–0007 by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: superfund.docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: EPA Docket Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005– 

0007. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sella M. Burchette, U.S. Environmental 

Response Team, MS 101, Building 205, 

Edison, NJ 08837, telephone number: 

721–321–6726; fax number: 732–321– 

6724; email address: 

burchette.sella@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has 

established a public docket for this ICR 

under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2005–0007 established a public docket 

for each of the ICRs identified in this 

document (see the Docket ID. numbers 

for each ICR that are provided in the 

text, which is available for online 

viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in 

person viewing at the Superfund Docket 

in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC 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 Superfund 

Docket is 202–566–0276. 

Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a 

copy of the draft collection of 

information, submit or view public 

comments, access the index listing of 

the contents of the docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket 

that are available electronically. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in 

the docket ID number identified in this 

document. 

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 

the PRA, EPA specifically solicits 

comments and information to enable it 

to: 

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

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. In 

particular, EPA is requesting comments 

from very small businesses (those that 

employ less than 25) on examples of 

specific additional efforts that EPA 

could make to reduce the paperwork 

burden for very small businesses 

affected by this collection. 

You may find the following 

suggestions helpful for preparing your 

comments: 

1. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible and provide specific examples. 

2. Describe any assumptions that you 

used. 

3. Provide copies of any technical 

information and/or data you used that 

support your views. 

4. If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at the 

estimate that you provide. 

5. Offer alternative ways to improve 

the collection activity. 

6. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the deadline identified 

under DATES. 

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

be sure to identify the docket ID number 

assigned to this action in the subject 

line on the first page of your response. 

You may also provide the name, date, 

and Federal Register citation. 

Affected entities: Entities potentially 

affected by this action are those State 

and local employees engaged in 

hazardous waste operations and 

emergency response in the 27 States that 

do not have Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) 

approved State plans. 

Title: EPA Worker Protection 

Standards for Hazardous Waste 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES