Adequacy Status of the Nashville 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Update for Transportation Conformity Purposes, 54738-54739 [05-18424]
Download as PDF
54738
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Notices
• What impediments exist to
implementing SCNP, and how long would it
take to implement it;
• What impact SCNP would have on other
current demand response programs.
III. Establishment of LAP Zones for
Wholesale Customers: Discussion of issues
and potential impacts of allowing individual
wholesale customers to establish their own
LAP zones.3
IV. Demand Response and the CAISO
Tariff: Overview of California’s demand
response policies and programs by the State
agencies. Participants will have the
opportunity to discuss, among other things:
• How successful demand response has
been this summer;
• How demand response fits into CAISO’s
current and MRTU tariff;
• What is/is not working with respect to
demand response;
• The role of the CAISO in procuring
demand response;
• The coordination among all players in
demand response.
[FR Doc. E5–5065 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. RP05–422–000]
El Paso Natural Gas Company;
Technical Conference Agenda
September 9, 2005.
On July 29, 2005, the Commission
issued an order in this proceeding 1 that
directed Staff to convene a technical
conference to discuss issues raised by El
Paso’s tariff filing. On August 11, 2005,
a notice was issued scheduling the
technical conference for Tuesday,
September 20, 2005 and continuing
through Wednesday, September 21,
2005. The August 11, 2005 notice stated
that an agenda for the conference would
be issued in a subsequent notice. The
agenda attached to this notice lists the
issues for discussion in the order in
which they will be addressed at the twoday technical conference. The
conference on Tuesday, September 20,
2005 will start at 10 a.m. (EST) and end
by 5 p.m. and continue on Wednesday,
September 21, 2005 at 9 a.m.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5–5060 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
3 July
1 112
1 Order, 112 FERC ¶ 61,013 at P 37.
FERC ¶ 61,150 (2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Sep 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. AD05–14–000]
State of the Natural Gas Infrastructure
Conference; Notice of Public
Conference
September 9, 2005.
Take notice that a public conference
will be held on October 12, 2005, from
approximately 9 a.m. until 3 p.m.
Eastern Time, in the Commission
Meeting Room on the second floor of the
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC. All interested persons
may attend; there is no fee or
registration. Commissioners are
expected to participate.
The conference will focus on issues
related to the development of natural
gas pipeline infrastructure. Discussion
will include changes in the industry
that impact infrastructure development,
regulatory impediments, financial risks
involved, and suggestions for regulatory
improvements. The Commission also is
interested in hearing about the state of
Gulf Coast facilities following Hurricane
Katrina, and what steps may need to be
taken to restore or upgrade pipeline
infrastructure in that region.
The Commission is now soliciting
nominations for speakers at the
conference. Persons wishing to
nominate themselves as speakers should
do so using this electronic link:
https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/
registration/speaker-1012-form.asp.
Such nominations must be made by
close of business, Friday, September 16,
2005, to enable staff to develop an
agenda.
Transcripts of the conference will be
immediately available from Ace
Reporting Company (202–347–3700 or
1–800–336–6646) for a fee. They will be
available for the public on the
Commission’s eLibrary system seven
calendar days after FERC receives the
transcript. Additionally, Capitol
Connection offers the opportunity for
remote listening and viewing of the
conference. It is available for a fee, live
over the Internet, by phone, or via
satellite. Persons interested in receiving
the broadcast, or who need information
on making arrangements should contact
David Reininger or Julia Morelli at the
Capitol Connection (703–993–3100) as
soon as possible or visit the Capitol
Connection Web site at https://
www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu and
click on ‘‘FERC.’’
FERC conferences are accessible
under section 508 of the Rehabilitation
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Act of 1973. For accessibility
accommodations please send an e-mail
to accessibility@ferc.gov or call toll free
866–208–3372 (voice) or 202–208–1659
(TTY), or send a FAX to 202–208–2106
with the required accommodations.
Additional details and the agenda for
this conference will be included in a
subsequent notice.
For more information about the
conference, please contact John Schnagl
at (202) 502–8756
(john.schnagl@ferc.gov) or Sarah
McKinley at (202) 502–8004
(sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov).
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5–5062 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[R04–OAR–2005–TN–00006–200525; FRL–
7970–1]
Adequacy Status of the Nashville 1Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Update
for Transportation Conformity
Purposes
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is
notifying the public that we have found
that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs) submitted in the
Nashville (Middle Tennessee) 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan update, dated
August 10, 2005, by the Tennessee
Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. On
March 2, 1999, the DC Circuit Court
ruled that MVEBs submitted in state
implementation plans (SIPs) cannot be
used for transportation conformity
determinations until EPA has
affirmatively found them adequate. As a
result of EPA’s finding, the Nashville
area can use the MVEBs from the
submitted Nashville 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan update for future
conformity determinations.
DATES: These MVEBs are effective
October 3, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanetta Wood, Environmental
Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch,
Air Quality Modeling and
Transportation Section, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Ms.
Wood can also be reached by telephone
at (404) 562–9025, or via electronic mail
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Notices
at wood.amanetta@epa.gov. The finding
is available at EPA’s conformity Web
site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
transp.htm (once there, click on the
‘‘Transportation Conformity’’ text icon,
then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP
Submissions’’).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Today’s notice is simply an
announcement of a finding that EPA has
already made. EPA Region 4 sent a letter
to TDEC on August 16, 2005, stating that
the MVEBs submitted in the Nashville
1-hour ozone maintenance plan update
dated August 10, 2005, are adequate.
EPA’s adequacy comment period ran
from June 9 through July 11, 2005. This
finding has also been announced on
EPA’s conformity Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm, (once
there, click ‘‘Transportation
Conformity’’ text icon, then look for
‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP
Submissions’’). The adequate MVEBs
are provided in the following table:
NASHVILLE AREA MVEBS
[Tons per day]
2016
VOC ............................................
NOX ............................................
21.93
45.76
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 EPA determines
whether a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes are
outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please
note that an adequacy review is separate
from EPA’s SIP submittal completeness
review, and it also should not be used
to prejudge EPA’s ultimate approval of
the SIP. Even if EPA finds the MVEBs
adequate, the Agency may later
determine that the SIP itself is not
approvable.
EPA has described the process for
determining the adequacy of submitted
SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999
memorandum entitled ‘‘Conformity
Guidance on Implementation of March
2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision’’).
EPA has followed this guidance in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Sep 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
making this adequacy determination.
This guidance is incorporated into
EPA’s July 1, 2004, final rulemaking
entitled ‘‘Transportation Conformity
Rule Amendments for the New 8-hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments: Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Changes’’
(69 FR 40004).
Dated: September 1, 2005.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 05–18424 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER–FRL–6667–5]
Environmental Impact Statements and
Regulations; Availability of EPA
Comments
Availability of EPA comments
prepared pursuant to the Environmental
Review Process (ERP), under section
309 of the Clean Air Act and Section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act as amended. Requests for
copies of EPA comments can be directed
to the Office of Federal Activities at
202–564–7167.
An explanation of the ratings assigned
to draft environmental impact
statements (EISs) was published in FR
dated April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16815).
Draft EISs
EIS No. 20050202, ERP No. D-CGDA03086–00, Programmatic—Vessel
and Facility Response Plans for Oil:
2003 Removal Equipment
Requirements and Alternative
Technology Revisions, To Increase the
Oil Removal Capability, U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
United States, Alaska, Guam, Puerto
Rico and other U.S. Territories.
Summary: EPA expressed concerns
related to the synergistic effects of
chemical dispersants with oil on water
quality and organisms within the water
column, spill modeling, and model
limitations for the fate and effect of
chemically dispersed oil.
Rating EC2
EIS No. 20050235, ERP No. D–NPS–
F65057–IN, Lincoln Boyhood
National Memorial General
Management Plan, Implementation,
Lincoln City, Spencer County, IN.
Summary: EPA has no objections to
the proposed action.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54739
Rating LO
EIS No. 20050266, ERP No. D–DOE–
A00171–00, Proposed Consolidation
of Nuclear Operations Related to
Production of radioisotope Power
Systems, Located or Planned Sites:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL), Tennessee; Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL), New
Mexico; and the Idaho National
Laboratory (INL), Idaho, TN, NM, ID.
Summary: EPA has no objections to
the proposed action.
Rating LO
EIS No. 20050310, ERP No. D–JUS–
G81013–TX, Laredo Detention
Facility, Proposed Contractor-Owned/
Contractor-Operated Detention
Facility, Implementation, Webb
County, TX.
Summary: EPA has no objections to
the proposed action.
Rating LO
EIS No. 20050300, ERP No. DS–NOA–
E55555–00, Reef Fish (Amendment
25) and Coastal Migratory Pelagic
(Amendment 17) for Extending the
Charter Vessel/Headboat Permit
Moratorium, Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic.
Summary: EPA agrees with the
extension of the permit moratorium, but
recommended that any available
moratorium data be evaluated and
summarized in the FSEIS as part of the
decision-making process.
Rating LO
Final EISs
EIS No. 20050270, ERP No. F–NRC–
E06024–AL, Generic—License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants for Browns
Ferry, Unit 1, 2 and 33 (TAC Nos.
MC7168, MC1769, and MC1770),
Supplement 21 to NUREG–1437,
Implementation, Athens, AL.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns because of the
uncertainty of the ultimate location of a
permitted repository site for the
radioactive waste.
EIS No. 20050317, ERP No. F–NAS–
E12007–FL, New Horizons Mission to
Pluto, Continued Preparations and
Implementation to Explore Pluto and
Potentially the Recently Discovered
Kuiper Belt, Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station, FL.
Summary: EPA’s previous issues have
been resolved therefore, EPA has no
objection to the proposed action.
EIS No. 20050334, ERP No. F–DOE–
J91000–MT, South Fork Flathead
Watershed Westslope Cutthroat Trout
Conservation Program, Preserve the
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54738-54739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18424]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[R04-OAR-2005-TN-00006-200525; FRL-7970-1]
Adequacy Status of the Nashville 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
Update for Transportation Conformity Purposes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that we have found
that the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) submitted in the
Nashville (Middle Tennessee) 1-hour ozone maintenance plan update,
dated August 10, 2005, by the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), are adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. On March 2, 1999, the DC Circuit Court ruled that MVEBs
submitted in state implementation plans (SIPs) cannot be used for
transportation conformity determinations until EPA has affirmatively
found them adequate. As a result of EPA's finding, the Nashville area
can use the MVEBs from the submitted Nashville 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan update for future conformity determinations.
DATES: These MVEBs are effective October 3, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanetta Wood, Environmental
Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning
Branch, Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Ms. Wood can also be reached by
telephone at (404) 562-9025, or via electronic mail
[[Page 54739]]
at wood.amanetta@epa.gov. The finding is available at EPA's conformity
Web site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm (once there, click on the
``Transportation Conformity'' text icon, then look for ``Adequacy
Review of SIP Submissions'').
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that EPA has
already made. EPA Region 4 sent a letter to TDEC on August 16, 2005,
stating that the MVEBs submitted in the Nashville 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan update dated August 10, 2005, are adequate. EPA's
adequacy comment period ran from June 9 through July 11, 2005. This
finding has also been announced on EPA's conformity Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm, (once there, click ``Transportation
Conformity'' text icon, then look for ``Adequacy Review of SIP
Submissions''). The adequate MVEBs are provided in the following table:
Nashville Area MVEBs
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC......................................................... 21.93
NOX......................................................... 45.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 EPA determines whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from
EPA's SIP submittal completeness review, and it also should not be used
to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if EPA finds the
MVEBs adequate, the Agency may later determine that the SIP itself is
not approvable.
EPA has described the process for determining the adequacy of
submitted SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999 memorandum entitled
``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity
Court Decision''). EPA has followed this guidance in making this
adequacy determination. This guidance is incorporated into EPA's July
1, 2004, final rulemaking entitled ``Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the New 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing
Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Changes'' (69 FR 40004).
Dated: September 1, 2005.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 05-18424 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P