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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.