Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 6719 

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. 

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 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of adequacy. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
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 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: http://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) 

2009 MVEB 

(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: http:// 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

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 

using http://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 

http://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 http:// 

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 http://www.regulations.gov, 

as EPA receives them and without 

change, unless the comment contains 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES